Williams v. Wyrick’s Empirical Analysis
763 F.2d 363 · 1985
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2007
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Rogers v. United States · Union Labor Life Insurance v. Pireno · State v. Williams
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Williams’ motions to recall the mandate were neither an appropriate nor adequate means of exhausting state remedies with respect to all claims asserted in his habe-as petition. The established Missouri procedure for obtaining post-conviction relief is to file a motion pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26. Williams’ motions to recall the mandate were ... an apparent attempt to circumvent the Rule 27.26 procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“our courts have properly recognized that a mandate may be recalled in order to remedy a deprivation of the federal constitutional rights of a criminal defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walton v. Caspari
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.