Ouimette v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis
942 F.2d 1 · 1991
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Lema v. United States (1993), Curran v. Cousins (2007)
26 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Chapman v. State of California · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Bagley
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]ssues not presented to the district court cannot be raised on appeal.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. (c) .An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented. .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Byrnes v. Vose“Finally, Dussault was promised acceptance into the Federal Witness Program by the state prosecutor, who personally negotiated this for Dussault. Acceptance into this program is predicated on the absence of outstanding criminal charges, so there is a plausible inference that even more undisclosed deals were made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnston v. Love
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.