White v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis
874 F.2d 599 · 1989
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Hernandez (1991), O'Bremski v. Maass (1990)
23 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 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 Strickland v. Washington · Bruton v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona · Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The best textual support for [petitioner’s] argument comes from the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 5 which expresses some concern about unresponsive answers: The answer must respond to the allegations of the petition.... [C]ourts occasionally receive answers which contain only a statement certifying the true cause of detention, or a series of delaying motions such as motions to dismiss. The requirement of the proposed rule that the “answer shall respond to the allegations of the petition” is intended to ensure that a responsive pleading will be filed and thus the functions of the answer fully served. While there may be circumstances where concerns about delay and efficiency militate in favor of ordering a full scale answer, this comment cannot be read as a blanket bar against motions to dismiss without regard to their merit. Moreover, ... responding to a habeas petition with a motion to dismiss is common practice. See, e.g., Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 483, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2643 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“bears 'the burden of showing not merely that the errors at his trial constituted a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with errors of constitutional dimension.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pertsoni v. Ylst“Attorney error short of ineffective assistance of counsel does not constitute cause for a procedural default even when that default occurs on appeal rather than at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. Marsh
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.