In Re Michael Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Rose v. Lundy · Ford v. Wainwright · Granberry v. Greer · FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Acceptance of [the petitioner’s] view of a state prisoner’s rights under subsection 848(q) would have the practical effect of supplanting state-court systems for the appointment of counsel in collateral review cases. Adherence to petitioner’s view would encourage state prisoners to ignore, as [the petitioner] has here, the proper sequence, developed from concerns for federalism, for seeking collateral relief from state-court judgments in death-penalty cases. Like [the petitioner], other state inmates, for no reason other than to gain the assistance of federally appointed counsel ... throughout all stages of collateral review (both state and federal), would ignore the exhaustion requirement and, before seeking state remedies, futilely file for federal habeas relief. Only after procuring a federally appointed lawyer would state inmates have an incentive to set upon the right track in pursuit of state remedies. If Congress had intended so novel a result, we think it would have stated so in unmistakable terms....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sterling v. Scott · Newman v. State“[W]e cannot agree that the terms “subsequent stage[s] of available judicial proceedings” and “competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency, [as may be available to the defendant]” . as used in subsection 848(q)(8), encompass within their meanings any proceedings convened under the authority of a state....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]hat requirement is based in principles of federalism that belie the notion that an inmate pursu[ing] state collateral review is seeking relief under section 2254.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Newman v. State · Hill v. State
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.