Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 821 F.2d 179 - Mayberry v. Petsock

Mayberry v. Petsock’s Empirical Analysis

821 F.2d 179 · 1987

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer (1991), Lawrence Lines v. David Larkins Warden (2000)

19 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

2801987199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Townsend v. Sain · Murray v. Carrier · Rose v. Lundy · Brown v. Allen

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

  1. “For example, although he contends that the state officials withheld his legal papers, he does not state who withheld such papers, when and where they were withheld, whether those papers consisted of putative appeal papers, or whether they were incoming papers to which he was not given access. Similarly he contends that state officials refused to allow him to prepare or file appeal briefs. Again he states nothing with respect to the identity of the person or persons, and more particularly when this conduct took place.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “£j]ust as ‘habeas corpus is not a general form of relief for those who seek to explore their case in search of its existence,’ so also discovery and an evidentiary hearing should not be available to a habeas petitioner who claims relief from the exhaustion rule unless the petitioner sets forth facts with sufficient* specificity that the District Court may be able, by examination of the allegations and the response, if any, to determine if further proceedings are appropriate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the activities of the state authorities made the prisoner's resort to the state procedures in effect unavailable,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.