Washington v. James’s Empirical Analysis
996 F.2d 1442 · 1993
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably United States v. Allen (1994), Thomas Garcia v. Hazel Lewis Hale Creek Correctional Facility (1999)
29 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Younger v. Harris · Kotteakos v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'it is evident that a miscarriage of justice has occurred'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Consequently, we do not believe [Petitioner] has fairly presented to the state courts- his constitutional objection.... [T]he state courts have not had an opportunity to address the federal claim raised on habeas review and this normally would preclude our review of that claim.... As we have already noted, this preclusion is not technically the result of a failure to exhaust state remedies, but is due to a procedural default. [Petitioner] no longer has the right to raise his claim under New York law either on direct appeal, see McKinney’s 1993 Revised N.Y. Court Rules § 500.10 (a), or on collateral review. New York’s collateral procedures are unavailable because appellant could have raised the [federal constitutional] claim on direct review but did not. See N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 440.10(2)(c). Therefore, [Petitioner] has no further recourse in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (c); Grey v. Hoke, 933 F.2d [at] 120.... Because he failed to raise' his claim in state court and no longer may do so, his claim is procedurally defaulted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the principles of comity and federalism dictate that we raise the defense [sua sponte] except in four circumstances: (1) where comity and federalism are not implicated or where they are better served by reaching the merits; (2) where the state is itself at fault for the procedural default; (3) where the alleged federal violation challenges the validity of the state trial itself; or (4) where the alleged federal violation was motivated by malice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ortiz v. Dubois
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.