Hannon v. Maschner’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 1553 · 1988
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Day v. McDonough (2006), Smith V. Secretary of New Mexico Department of Corrections (1995)
34 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 Strickland v. Washington · Haines v. Kerner · Gideon v. Wainwright · Fay v. Noia · McMann v. Richardson
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] petition may be dismissed if it appears that the state of which the respondent is an officer has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by delay in its filing unless the petitioner shows that it is based on grounds of which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]oth [the petitioner] and his former attorney are available to testify”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walters v. Scott · Walters v. Scott“The question of whether [defendant’s] counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to file a timely notice of appeal depends upon his interaction with [the defendant.] (citation omitted). If defense counsel explained the pros and cons of an appeal to [the defendant] and [the defendant] made a knowing and intelligent choice not to appeal, counsel’s failure to timely file could not have violated [the defendant’s] due process rights. If counsel did not adequately advise his client or if he ignored his client’s wishes, the failure to file an appeal may well have denied [the defendant] due process.”
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.