82 F. App'x 802 - Orbe v. True’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Wainwright v. Witt
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By engrafting the deferential standard of § 2254(d) onto the “cause” prong of the federal doctrine of procedural default, the district court effectively held that § 2254(d) compels the conclusion that federal habeas courts are precluded from reviewing a procedurally defaulted federal constitutional claim which has not been reviewed on the merits by any court, even if we would independently find that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the claim on direct appeal— unless, of course, we could also say that the state court’s contrary finding was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Cf. Mitchell v. Esparza, — U.S. -, -, 124 S.Ct. 7, 11 , 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003) (per curiam) (noting that under § 2254(d)’s standard of review, “[a] federal court may not overrule a state court for simply holding a view different from its own, when the precedent from this Court is, at best, ambiguous”). However, at least one other district court has reached a contrary conclusion, holding that procedural default remains an independent federal doctrine and, accordingly, that we determine de novo whether a state court defendant has demonstrated cause to excuse his or her failure to raise a constitutional claim before the state courts. See Holloway v. Horn, 161 F.Supp.2d 452 , 478 n. 12 (E.D.Pa.2001); Holland v. Horn, 150 F.Supp.2d 706, 747 (E.D.Pa.2001).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Longworth v. Ozmint“Edwards does not tell us whether “the .same claim of ineffective assistance of counsel get[s] reviewed differently when presented merely as cause for a procedural default as opposed to being presented in a petition as the basis in the first instance for habeas relief!.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Longworth v. Ozmint
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.