Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 691 F.2d 3 - Williams v. Holbrook

Williams v. Holbrook’s Empirical Analysis

691 F.2d 3 · 1982

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
April 2005
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably United States Spurlark v. Wolff (1983), Nadworny v. Fair (1989)

24 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions

430198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Townsend v. Sain · Escobedo v. Illinois · Fay v. Noia · Rose v. Lundy

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “inflexibly to the legal theories and factual allegations recited to the state courts.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “she need not demonstrate that those courts either addressed or decided them”, id. at 8 ). 2 . Such a minimal showing also could prove fatal to a constitutional claim like Dyer’s on state procedural grounds. Rule 16(a)(4) of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[F]or the substance of a claim to have been advanced before the state courts, the same legal theory must have been presented to them. It is not enough that a generalized objection invoking the rule of law now relied on in federal courts was advanced before the state courts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.