Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 793 F.2d 621 - Wheat v. Thigpen

Wheat v. Thigpen’s Empirical Analysis

793 F.2d 621 · 1986

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
8
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 153 Ill. 2d 264 - People v. Flores (1992), Osborn v. Shillinger (1988)

44 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions

3501986199020002010decided

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 Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Dusky v. United States · Engle v. Isaac

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

  1. “In the years immediately preceding Wheat's appeal the Mississippi Supreme Court routinely reviewed claims made for the first time on writ of error coram nobis. The first case where the court expressly declares that it will not consider claims raised for the first time on writ of error coram nobis is the case involving Wheat's petition. Wheat v. Thigpen, 431 So.2d 486 (Miss. 1983). In a series of cases following Wheat the court repeatedly held that it would not consider claims raised for the first time on writ of error coram nobis. [cites omitted] Yet, on at least one occasion following the court's announcement that it would not consider claims not raised on the direct appeal, the court has addressed the merits of a claim raised for the first time after the direct appeal. Caldwell v. State, 481 So.2d 850 (Miss. 1985)... . We are therefore persuaded that the Mississippi Supreme Court had not clearly announced or strictly or regularly followed the procedural bar at the time of Wheat's direct appeal. Thus, no independent and adequate state grounds exist to prevent federal review of Wheat's claim concerning the prosecutor's closing argument.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “sufficient data available to guarantee reliability”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “clearly announced to defendant and counsel.”
    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.