Lyons v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis
232 F.3d 666 · 2000
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Rose v. Lundy · Anderson v. Harless · Duncan v. Henry · Todd Hiivala v. Tana Wood
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 2254, habeas petitioners must `fairly presen[t] federal claims to the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and to correct alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reese v. Baldwin“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on 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[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fields v. Waddington“[A] petitioner for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 exhausts available state remedies only if he characterized the claims he raised in state proceedings specifically as federal claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reese v. Baldwin
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.