Joseph A. Puleio v. George A. Vose, Jr., Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 1197 · 1987
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 24 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably United States v. Zannino (1990), Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. (1988)
76 federal appellate · 24 district · 17 state decisions
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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · Wainwright v. Sykes · Ohio v. Roberts · 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law ministers to the vigilant, not to those who sleep upon perceptible rights.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]ot every passing reference to substance dispels the onus of noncompliance with a contemporaneous objection rule. Waiver in such circumstances must entail the state court reaching the gist of the federal constitutional question. The test “is the extent to which the state court relies upon federal rights, cases and legal principles in conducting its review.... The greater the reliance on federal doctrine, the more likely we are to find waiver”. Jackson v. Amaral, 729 F.2d 41, 45 (1st Cir.1984).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1) the state in fact has a 'contemporaneous objection' rule; 2) the state enforces and does not waive the rule; and 3) the defendant fails to show both 'cause' for and 'prejudice' from, not having complied with the rule.”
2 later decisions 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.