Mercado v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
July 1998
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Thomas v. Arn · United States v. Frady · Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Smith v. Phillips
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because non-constitutional claims are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus proceedings, Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 , 102 S.Ct. 940, 948 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982), a habeas petition[er] must put state courts on notice that they are to decide federal constitutional claims. See, e.g., Daye, 696 F.2d at 192 . It is not necessary for a habeas petitioner to cite “book and verse” of the Constitution, id. (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 , 92 S.Ct. 509, 513 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971)), but adequate notice to the state courts that they are to decide federal constitutional claims at least includes: (a) reliance on pertinent federal cases employing constitutional analysis, (b) reliance on state eases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations, (c) assertion of the claim in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific right protected by the Constitution, and (d) allegation of a pattern of facts that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Colon v. Johnson“Interestingly, in arguing his claim herein petitioner urges constitutional analysis and uses language that is notably absent from his Appellate Division papers. It seems reasonable to infer that the difference in argument is the result of petitioner’s awareness that to present a claim herein, it must be one of constitutional dimension, and the comparison between his papers here and his papers at the Appellate Division serves to underscore the fact that his argument to the state court was not presented in such terms.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Colon v. Johnson
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.