Wolfe v. Clarke’s Empirical Analysis
718 F.3d 277 · 2013
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · Younger v. Harris · Berger v. United States · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the end of the day, any scenario presenting circumstances sufficiently extraordinary to warrant federal interference with a State's reprosecution of a successful § 2254 petitioner will be extremely rare, and will ordinarily be limited to situations where a recognized constitutional error cannot be remedied by a new trial.”); Jones, 600 F.3d at 542 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Equitable federal court interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings should be undertaken in only the most limited, narrow, and circumscribed situations.”)). 13 . Gently v. Deuth, 456 F.3d 687 , 692 (6th Cir.2006); see Jones, 600 F.3d at 542 (”
2 later decisions 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.