Willis v. Aiken’s Empirical Analysis
8 F.3d 556 · 1993
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Herron v. Shalala (1994), Leavitt v. Arave (2004)
18 federal appellate · 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 Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Teague v. Lane · Michigan v. Long · Sullivan v. Louisiana
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the decision of the last state court to which the petitioner presented his federal claims fairly appeared to rest primarily on resolution of those claims, or to be interwoven with those claims, and did not clearly and expressly rely on an independent and adequate state ground, a federal court may address the petition.” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 735 , 111 S.Ct. at 2557 (footnote omitted). Determining whether the Illinois Supreme Court's plain error review “fairly appear[s]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Indiana postconviction appellate court addressed federal constitutional concerns in analyzing the appropriateness of the jury instruction. As we have just noted, however, it did so in the context of determining whether waiver of the issue through failure to object ought to be forgiven because the instruction constituted “fundamental error.” We must now determine whether, in this procedural context, the Indiana appellate court’s judgment can be said to rest on an independent and adequate state law ground or whether the determination of “no fundamental error” is so “interwoven,” Coleman, 501 U.S. at 735 , 111 S.Ct. at 2557 , with the federal claim as to justify federal review without a demonstration of cause and prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Campbell v. Burris
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.