Cartee v. Nix’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 296 · 1986
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably United States v. Taglia (1991), Beaulieu v. United States (1991)
38 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 · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Murray v. Carrier
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... we think that the exhaustion doctrine, which is 'principally designed to protect the state courts' role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings,' Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 , 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), generally requires that a claim of ineffective assistance be presented to the state courts as an independent claim before it may be used to establish cause for a procedural default.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coleman v. O'Leary“So long as a defendant is represented by counsel whose performance is not constitutionally ineffective under the standard established in Strickland v. Washington, [ 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ] ... we discern no inequity in requiring him to bear the risk of attorney error that results in a procedural default.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he district court did not abuse its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing. The state's fact-finding procedures ... provided petitioners a full and fair hearing. None of the circumstances outlined by the Townsend Court mandate an evidentiary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Resnover v. Pearson
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.