Mathis v. Zant’s Empirical Analysis
975 F.2d 1493 · 1992
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Townsend v. Sain · Sumner v. Mata · Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to articulate [the Court's] ground or grounds for circumventing the presumption of correctness accorded a state court's factual findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) by sua sponte permitting petitioner to submit additional evidence on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, (2) to determine whether petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice for failing to present to the state courts the supplemental evidence submitted to the district court, and (3) to decide whether petitioner's development of supplemental evidence amounted to the presentation of a separate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel not yet exhausted in the state courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) to articulate [the Court’s] ground or grounds for circumventing the presumption of correctness accorded a state court’s factual findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) by sua sponte permitting petitioner to submit additional evidence on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, (2) to determine whether petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice for failing to present to the state courts the supplemental evidence submitted to the district court, and (3) to decide whether petitioner’s development of supplemental evidence amounted to the presentation of a separate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel not yet exhausted in the state courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“allege[d] facts which, if proved, would entitle him to relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Seidel v. Merkle
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.