Witt v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate ·

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

1. “(a) If the ground was previously addressed in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner must demonstrate that the decision was not on the merits or the ends of justice would be served by reconsideration of the merits. The “ends of justice” are defined by objective factors, such as whether there was a full and fair hearing on the original petition or whether there was an intervening change in the facts of the case or the applicable law. (b) If the ground was not previously presented in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner must demonstrate the failure to present the ground in the prior proceeding was neither the result of an intentional abandonment or withholding nor the product of inexcusable neglect. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); see also Stephens v. Kemp, 721 F.2d 1300 (11th Cir.1983), and Potts v. Zant, 638 F.2d 727 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) [, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 877 , 102 S.Ct. 357 , 70 L.Ed.2d 187 (1981) ].”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tucker v. Kemp, Warden · Fleming v. Kemp

2. “necessarily attributable to abandonment or inexcusable neglect”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. Dugger