Coleman v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.3d 367 · 2014
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Gonzalez v. Crosby · 132 S. Ct. 1309 - Martinez v. Ryan · 133 S. Ct. 1911 - Trevino v. Thaler · Dennis Thurl Dowthitt v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[procedural defects are narrowly construed. They include fraud on the habe-as court, as well as erroneous previous rulings which precluded a merits determination—for example, a denial for such reasons as failure to exhaust, procedural default, or statute-of limitations bar. They generally do not include an attack based on the movant’s own conduct, or his habeas counsel’s omissions, which do not go to the integrity of the proceedings, but in effect ask for a second chance to have the merits determined favorably.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] federal court examining a Rule 60(b) motion should determine whether it either: (1) presents a new habeas claim (an 'asserted federal basis for relief from a ... judgment of conviction'), or (2) 'attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits .'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f ... the motion challenges 'not the substance of the federal court's resolution of a claim on the merits, but some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings,' then a Rule 60(b) motion is proper.”
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.