Justus v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 709 · 1990
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Rose v. Lundy · Kimmelman v. Morrison · Harris v. Reed
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.
“[i]n an extraordinary case where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause for the procedural default.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Murray [v. Carrier] stands for the proposition that before an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be raised as cause in federal habeas, it must first be exhausted in state court and not be procedurally defaulted. Any other reading of Murray eviscerates Wainwright .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“sense of respect for the procedural default rule in the appellate context.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Jones
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.