Farmer v. Prast’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 602 · 1983
Citation profile
22 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Dandridge v. Williams · Engle v. Isaac · Illinois v. Allen · Sumner v. Mata
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.
“'[f]ederal habeas corpus is precluded when ... the state appellate court affirms a trial court decision on the twin grounds of lack of merit in the constitutional claim and of appellant's failure, without justification, to comply with a state procedural rule.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is fundamental law in [Wisconsin] that the defendant must object in a timely fashion in order to permit the trial court to correct any possible error at the time it happens. Having failed to do so, the defendant has waived his rights to have the error reviewed on appeal. See Maclin v. State, 92 Wis.2d 323 , 330-31, 284 N.W.2d 661 , 665 (1979); State v. Wolter, 85 Wis.2d 353 , 373, 270 N.W.2d 230 , 240 (Ct.App.1978).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Weber v. Israel
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.