Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 735 F.2d 1236 - Shriner v. Wainwright

Shriner v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

735 F.2d 1236 · 1984

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Commonwealth v. Collins (2005), United States v. Cecil (1988)

15 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

26019841990200020102020decided

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. § 1651

Relies on Witherspoon v. Illinois · Sanders v. United States · Barefoot v. Estelle · Woodard v. Hutchins · Massie v. Sumner

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

  1. “Shriner’s attempt to couch the issue in ineffective assistance terms is once again unavailing. If such arguments were allowed on successive habeas petitions, every petitioner would be entitled to file and have considered successive petitions merely by alleging a substantive ground for relief in the initial petition and then, even after the initial petition is denied, by alleging in a second petition his attorney’s failure to raise the substantive ground at the trial stage, claiming that such failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Under Witherspoon a defendant in a capital case has no right to jurors, even if they only recommend sentence, whose sentencing decision is unalterably pre-determined in the defendant's favor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.