Ashby v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
693 F.2d 789 · 1982
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2006
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · Rose v. Lundy · Engle v. Isaac
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although recent dicta by the Supreme Court might be read to require a “cause and prejudice” approach to any “state procedural default,” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 129 , 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1572 [ 71 L.Ed.2d 783 ] (1982), we do not feel that the Court has completely discarded the “deliberate bypass/knowing and intelligent waiver” standard. [Citation omitted]. In a case such as the present one, in which the particular choice to forego a state procedure [direct appeal] is customarily made by the defendant, rather than by the defendant’s attorney, the approach taken in Fay v. Noia, supra, seems more appropriate. [Citing Graham, supra].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Lockhart
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.