Barks v. Armontrout’s Empirical Analysis
872 F.2d 237 · 1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Jones v. Cunningham · Smith v. Murray · Dugger v. Adams · Huggins v. Isenbarger
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the Missouri Supreme Court determines that Rule 29.15 dictates a different result, we will be bound by such decision. Until then, we are convinced Barks’s further attempts to seek redress in state court will he futile. Thus, we reverse the district court’s dismissal without prejudice, and remand the case for the district court to consider all of Barks’s claims. 6”
1 later decision 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.