Velasquez v. Leonardo’s Empirical Analysis
898 F.2d 7 · 1990
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Fama v. Commissioner of Correctional Services (2000), Glenn v. Bartlett (1996)
7 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Engle v. Isaac · Harris v. Reed · Tobacco Institute, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] state court need not fear reaching the merits of a federal claim in an alternative holding. By its very definition, the adequate and independent state ground doctrine requires the federal court to honor a state holding that is a sufficient basis for the state court’s judgment, even when the state, also relies on federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Harris [v. Reed ], federal habeas review is precluded “as long as the state court explicitly invokes a state procedural bar rule as a separate basis for decision.” [ Harris, supra.] The rule that ‘an adequate and independent finding of procedural default will bar federal habeas review of the federal claim,’ id. 109 S.Ct. at 1043 , applies, absent a showing of cause for the default and resulting prejudice, see Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), or a demonstration that failure to consider the federal claim will result in a “ ‘fundamental miscarriage of justice.’ ” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495 , 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2649 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 135 , 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1575 , 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Faced with a common problem, we adopt a common solution: a procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case ‘clearly and expressly’ states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.