Maupin v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
785 F.2d 135 · 1986
Citation profile
164 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 338 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Beverly A. Seymour v. Diane Walker,respondent-Appellee (2000), Byrd v. Collins (2000)
164 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Anders v. California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 338 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the petitioner failed to comply with an applicable state procedural rule; (2) whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction; (3) whether the state procedural bar is an “adequate and independent” state ground on which the state can foreclose federal review; and (4) if the above are met, whether the petitioner has demonstrated “cause” and “prejudice.””
69 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, ... the prejudice that must be shown must be a result of the alleged constitutional violation and not a result of the trial counsel’s failure to meet state procedural guidelines. Second, the burden is on the petitioner to show that he was prejudiced by the alleged constitutional error.... Moreover, he must show that there was actual prejudice not merely a possibility of prejudice. * * * Third, in analysing a petitioner’s contention of prejudice, the court should assume that the petitioner has stated a meritorious constitutional claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[while] ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute cause, “the mere fact that counsel failed to recognize the factual or legal basis for a claim, or failed to raise the claim despite recognizing it, does not constitute cause for a procedural default.” In fact, “the existence of cause for a procedural default must ordinarily turn on whether the prisoner can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the State’s procedural rule.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Scuba v. Brigano
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.