Ross v. Wj Estelle’s Empirical Analysis
694 F.2d 1008 · 1983
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Drew v. State (1987), Koch v. Puckett (1990)
32 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
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 Kentucky v. Indiana · Page v. Work · Brooks v. Tennessee · MacKenna v. Ellis · Washington v. Watkins
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a court cannot consider a habeas petitioner's bald assertions on a critical issue in his pro se petition ..., unsupported and unsupportable by anything else contained in the record, to be of probative evidentiary value.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Davis · Joseph v. Butler“[M]ere conclusory allegations do not raise a constitutional issue in a habeas proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We do not mean to suggest that a trial court is free to disregard the clear command of the Sixth Amendment regarding compulsory process. A criminal defendant, especially if he is indigent, must be given an opportunity to put on a competent and vigorous defense when he is on trial for his life and liberty. We hold only that a defendant is not entitled to an unlimited number of witnesses to testify on his behalf lest our criminal justice system grind to a complete halt. He is entitled to have compulsory process served on only as many witnesses as will assist him on receiving a fair trial under the circumstances of his case. And he must demonstrate to the Court that there is “some colorable need for the witness to be summoned.” The need for this simple and common sense requirement should be obvious to all. Were it otherwise, frivolous and annoying requests would make trial endless and unduly burdensome on the court and all officers thereof”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harvey v. State
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.