Williams v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 578 · 1988
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 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 Sanders v. United States · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Kuhlmann v. Wilson · Ohio v. Kentucky · Roach v. United States
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to demonstrate that the ends of justice mandate another hearing, the prisoner must make a “colorable showing of factual innocence.” Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 , 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2627 , 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986) (plurality). Williams does not attempt to meet this burden. Williams has neither shown nor alleged unfairness at any step of his collateral review, and we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.