Wade v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis
798 F.2d 304 · 1986
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2005 · most notably United States v. Scott (1987), Anderson v. Butler (1988)
9 federal appellate · 2 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 Strickland v. Washington · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Union Labor Life Insurance v. Pireno · Purnell v. Missouri Department of Corrections
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`when the facts alleged, if true, would entitle [movant] to relief.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On the evening of March 28, 1982, a police officer was dispatched to check out a report of prowlers at the Roadway Terminal in St. Louis, Missouri. The officer observed an individual running from the terminal lot to a station wagon. He saw the individual place something in the back of the car and then enter on the passenger side of the car. The officer stopped the car and observed approximately ninety items of assorted clothing contained in cellophane bags scattered in the rear of the car. Roadway personnel stated that some of the clothing in the car had been stolen from the terminal. Both Wade, the driver of the car, and Willie Dean, the passenger, were arrested. The indictment was filed on June 11, 1982, and a public defender was appointed to represent Wade. Trial was set for July 26, 1982. Five continuances were granted; four were at Wade’s request. On December 15,1982, the public defender officer was granted leave to withdraw because of a conflict of interest, and the special assistant public defender officer was appointed to represent Wade. On December 28, 1982, Wade’s counsel entered an appearance on his behalf. Trial was set for January 18, 1983. Counsel started working for the special assistant public defender office, her first employment as an attorney, on December 16, 1982. She had approximately three weeks to prepare the case. On the day , of trial, counsel informed the court that she was not prepared to try the case because she had visited with Wade only once, had”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wade v. Armontrout“by failing to notify the district court that [appellants] had not exhausted [their] claim[s], the State waived the exhaustion requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fruit v. Norris
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.