Caswell v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
953 F.2d 853 · 1992
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Werts v. Vaughn (2000), McCandless v. Vaughn (1999)
33 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia · Murray v. Carrier · Rose v. Lundy
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“objective factor external to the defense,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Reading a pro forma state court decision as relying on state procedural grounds when those grounds are argued to the state court and are dispositive is consistent with established practice. In the absence of other evidence, the normal presumption is that a state court will decide a case on state rather than federal grounds when both grounds are raised and both are dispositive.... Similarly, the usual presumption is that a state court, as all courts, will decide a case on non-constitutional grounds where possible; in this case that means state grounds, because federal grounds in a habeas case are perforce constitutional.... Under the plain language of Coleman , as well as established prudential principals, we conclude that the state courts did not rely on federal law in making their decision and that, therefore, the decision rests on an independent and adequate state ground.”
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.