Mathis v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 612 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Coe v. Thurman (1990), Simmons v. Reynolds (1990)
13 federal appellate ·
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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on People v. Bachert · People v. Hairston · People ex rel. Douglas v. Vincent · People v. Adams
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e are sympathetic to the problems associated with processing the staggering number of indigent appeals in the state system[,] ... federal habeas review [remains] available to protect indigent prisoners' rights to appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mathis filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 1981. On November 17, the Appellate Division granted his request to prosecute his appeal as an impoverished individual, directed the trial court stenographers to produce two copies of the trial transcript within 20 days, appointed the Legal Aid Society to act as appellate counsel, and extended the time to perfect the appeal until 120 days from the filing of the record. The trial minutes were not filed for over 15 months. During this period Mathis wrote a number of letters to Legal Aid inquiring about the status of the case and asking why no attorney had been assigned to it. Legal Aid responded only that it had not yet received the minutes. About one month after the complete minutes were filed on March 2, 1983, Legal Aid received a copy. Legal Aid had represented Mathis’s co-defendant at trial. Consequently, on April 7, 1983, Legal Aid notified Mathis that it had “recently discovered” a conflict of interest and that it would ask the Appellate Division to be relieved as assigned counsel from the case. On May 17, 1983, the Appellate Division granted Legal Aid’s request and selected Peter F. Anderson from the 18-B panel, a list of lawyers who handle appeals for a fee, to represent Mathis. The trial minutes were forwarded to Anderson later that month. Five months later, on October 14,1983, Anderson sent Mathis a brief letter promising to file the appeal within the next three months. On October 31, 1983, the Deputy Clerk of the Appella”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mathis v. Hood“a remedy which is still available to him even though his appeal has at last been decided”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simmons v. Reynolds
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.