House v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably House v. Bell (2006), Coe v. Bell (1998)
8 federal appellate · 34 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A ground for relief is previously determined if a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on the merits after a full and fair hearing. (b)(1) A ground for relief is waived if the petitioner knowingly and understandingly failed to present it for determination in any proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction in which the ground could have been presented. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a ground for relief not raised in any such proceeding which was held was waived.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. West · Thompson v. State“(b)(1) A ground for relief is waived if the petitioner knowingly and understanding^ failed to present it for determination in any proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction in which the ground could have been presented. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a ground for relief not raised in any such proceeding which was held was waived.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Brimmer v. State · Rickman v. State“We conclude that a “full and fair hearing” sufficient to support a finding of previous determination occurs if a petitioner is given the opportunity to present proof and argument on the petition for post-conviction relief. We further conclude that the rebuttable presumption of waiver is not overcome by an allegation that the petitioner did not personally and therefore, “knowingly and understandingly,” waive a ground for relief. Instead, waiver is to be determined by an objective standard under which a petitioner is bound by the action or inaction of his attorney. Finally, we conclude that there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings, and therefore, an allegation of ineffective assistance of prior post-conviction counsel does not preclude application of the defenses of waiver and previous determination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. House v. Bell
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.