Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.3d 255 - McCandless v. Vaughn

McCandless v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis

172 F.3d 255 · 1999

Citation profile

192
cited by 192 later decisions
6
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 60 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 192 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Werts v. Vaughn (2000), Martin Daniel Appel v. Martin Horn Commissioner Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2001)

41 federal appellate · 60 district · 10 state decisions

12101999200020102020decided

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

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Davis v. Alaska · Ohio v. Roberts · Lindh v. Murphy · California v. Green

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

  1. “present a federal claim's factual and legal substance to the state courts in a manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being asserted.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) reliance on pertinent federal cases employing constitutional analysis, (b) reliance on state cases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations, (c) assertion of the claim in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific right protected by the Constitution, and (d) allegation of a pattern of facts that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). In such cases, however, applicants are considered to have procedurally defaulted their claims and federal courts may not consider the merits of such claims unless the applicant establishes”
    4 later decisions 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.