Abels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “The Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, did not seek a determination of state law prior to rendering this decision and based its decision on what, in their view, was “apparently” the law in Oklahoma. Had a determination of state law been requested the Court would have been provided the interpretation we rendered in Pueblo v. State, 799 P.2d 141 (Okl.Cr.1990), wherein we stated that “the general rule of law in Oklahoma is that the last act required of trial counsel is the filing of all jurisdictional documents required to be filed in the district court to perfect an appeal, if an appeal is to be initiated.” We further determined that “[a]n appearance before this Court for purposes of perfecting an appeal is not made until the filing of the Petition in Error, with supporting original record and transcript of evidence” as required by our rules. 799 P.2d at 141 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Cowley

2. “[R]ecognizing the jurisdiction of the federal courts in habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , it is apparent that the Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, has conducted a review and determined under federal law that Appellant was denied a direct appeal of his convictions through no fault of his own and that finding is binding upon state courts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Cowley