Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 722 F.2d 159 - Jones v. Wj Estelle

Jones v. Wj Estelle’s Empirical Analysis

722 F.2d 159 · 1983

Citation profile

173
cited by 173 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

110 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 173 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably McCleskey v. Zant (1991), Harris v. Pulley (1988)

110 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

11301983199020002010decided

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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Estelle v. Gamble · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia

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

  1. “whether he withheld it without legal excuse when he filed his earlier petition.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hen a petitioner was represented by competent counsel in a fully prosecuted writ he cannot by testimony of personal ignorance justify the omission of claims when awareness of those claims is chargeable to his competent counsel.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Counsel competence in habeas proceedings is not a constitutional inquiry, since a state has no constitutional duty to provide counsel in collateral proceedings.”
    3 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.