In re Wogenstahl’s Empirical Analysis
902 F.3d 621 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · McCleskey v. Zant · Panetti v. Quarterman · Cullen v. Pinholster
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clark v. Nagy“claims were not unripe at the time he filed his initial petition because the purported Brady violations ... had already occurred when he filed his petition, although [petitioner] was unaware of these facts”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clark v. Nagy
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.