Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 701 F.2d 719 - Wallace v. Al Lockhart

Wallace v. Al Lockhart’s Empirical Analysis

701 F.2d 719 · 1983

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
4
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Sanders v. State (1987), United States v. Tarantino (1988)

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

61019831990200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Barker v. Wingo · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Picard v. Connor

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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Q]uestions concerning the admissibility of evidence are matters of state law and are not reviewable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding unless the asserted error infringed a specific constitutional protection or was so prejudicial as to deny due process.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “dismissal of the habeas petition without a hearing is proper ... where the dispute can be resolved on the basis of the record.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “pro se petitions should be liberally construed,”
    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.