Coleman v. O'Leary’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 696 · 1988
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2014
10 federal appellate · 1 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 United States v. Agurs · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · United States v. Frady · Rose v. Lundy
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]irmly embedded in Supreme Court precedent is the doctrine that a federal habeas petitioner who fails to comply with a state procedural rule, such as... invited error, at trial, thus barring state appellate court consideration of the merits of a criminal defendant's challenge to a state court conviction, precludes federal habeas review of that claim absent a showing of cause for, and prejudice resulting from, the procedural default.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leavitt v. Arave · Leavitt v. Arave“the Illinois Appellate Court's subsidiary holding that under Illinois law the conduct of Coleman and his attorney leading to the trial judge's refusal to continue his initial testing order `invited the error'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leavitt v. Arave · Leavitt v. Arave“[a] federal court sitting in habeas corpus is required to respect a state court's finding of waiver or procedural default under state law. Federal courts do not sit to correct errors made by state courts in the interpretation and application of state law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barksdale v. Lane
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.