Dixon v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
847 F.3d 714 · 2017
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Coleman v. Thompson · Rose v. Lundy · Duncan v. Walker
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The caselaw concerning what constitutes 'good cause' under Rhines has not been developed in great detail.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] petitioner who was without counsel in state postconviction proceedings cannot be expected to understand the technical requirements of exhaustion and should not be denied the opportunity to exhaust a potentially meritorious claim simply because he lacked counsel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Torres v. McDowell“that his claim was exhausted. Dixon , 847 F.3d at 720 (citing Wooten v. Kirkland , 540 F.3d 1019 , 1024 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied , 556 U.S. 1285 , 129 S.Ct. 2771 , 174 L.Ed.2d 276 (2009) ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sadowski v. Grounds
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.