Pesina v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 F. Supp. 2d 314 - Atkins v. Miller · David Aparicio v. Christopher Artuz

2. “While that statutory time limit may ultimately be held by state courts to preclude them from reaching the merits of [petitioner’s] ineffective assistance claim, he must still present that claim to the highest state court. We have no authority to declare as a matter of state law that an appeal from the denial of his original Section 440.10 motion is unavailable or that he cannot raise the ineffective assistance claim in a new Section 440.10 action. Until [petitioner] presents his claim to the highest state court — whether or not it seems likely that he will be held to be procedurally barred— he has not exhausted available state procedures.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 965 F. Supp. 489 - Gibriano v. Attorney General of State of NY

3. “to the highest court in the pertinent state,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. David Aparicio v. Christopher Artuz