Plunkett v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
828 F.2d 954 · 1987
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2011
5 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 659 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Stone v. Powell · Rose v. Lundy · Frisbie v. Collins · Granberry v. Greer
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial. In this context the contribution of the exclusionary rule, if any, to the effectuation of the Fourth Amendment is minimal, and the substantial societal costs of application of the rule persist with special force.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the State answers a habeas corpus petition, it has a duty to advise the district court whether the prisoner has, in fact, exhausted all available state remedies. As this case demonstrates, however, there are exceptional eases in which the State fails, whether inadvertently or otherwise, to raise an arguably meritorious nonexhaustion defense. The State’s omission in such a case-makes it appropriate for the court of appeals to take a fresh look at the issue. The court should determine whether the interests of comity and federalism will be better served by addressing the merits forthwith or by requiring a series of additional state and district court proceedings before reviewing the merits of the petitioner’s claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beekman v. Lacy“When a [district] court is convinced that the petition lacks merit and when the State has waived any exhaustion defense, application of the exhaustion doctrine would merely result in useless litigation in the state courts. When “the applicant does not raise even a colorable federal claim” that is a reason for reaching the merits and denying the petition, for this preserves judicial resources.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beekman v. Lacy
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.