Mitchell v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
698 F.2d 940 · 1983
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably United States v. York (1987), Pickens v. Al Lockhart (1983)
22 federal appellate · 3 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Townsend v. Sain · Santoni v. United States · Oregon v. Hass · Angrist v. United States
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Jensen v. Satran, 651 F.2d 605, 607-8 (8th Cir.1981) we held: A federal district court must grant an evi-dentiary hearing in a section 2254 action if: (1) the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in a state hearing, (2) the state factual determination is not supported by the record, (3) the state fact finding procedure failed to provide full and fair hearings, (4) there is a substantial allegation of newly discovered evidence, (5) material facts were not developed at the state court hearing, or (6) it appears the state fact trier did not afford the petitioner a full and fair hearing. Pruitt v. Housewright, 624 F.2d 851, 852 (8th Cir.1980) (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313 , 83 S.Ct. 745, 757 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963)). This court has required a federal district court to grant an evidentiary hearing in a section 2254 action “if relevant facts are in dispute and a fair evidentiary hearing was not granted in state court.” Id. (quoting Parton v. Wyrick, 614 F.2d 154, 158 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 846 , 101 S.Ct. 131 , 66 L.Ed.2d 56 (1980)). Before a hearing is required, however, it must appear that the petitioner’s allegations, if proven, would establish the right to his release. See also Walker v. Solem, 648 F.2d 1188 at 1189 (8th Cir.1981) (standards for evidentiary hearings in section 2254 cases discussed); Lindner v. Wyrick, 644 F.2d 724 at 729 (8th Cir.1981) (dismissal without an evidentiary hearing proper when dispute can be resolved on the bas”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Wyrick“A full evidentiary hearing need not be held if [appellant] received a full and fair hearing in state court ... and if the district court has independently reviewed the transcript of the state court proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Travis v. Lockhart“Mere absence of a perfect transcript does not necessarily deny one due process of law.... [A] constitutional violation [also] needs to be asserted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Quintero v. Tilton
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.