Kelly v. Small’s Empirical Analysis
300 F.3d 1159 · 2002
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Rose v. Lundy · Duncan v. Walker · Picard v. Connor · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exercise of discretion to stay the federal proceeding is particularly appropriate when an outright dismissal will render it unlikely or impossible for the petitioner to return to federal court within the one-year limitation period imposed by [AEDPA].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“district court must consider the alternative of staying the petition after dismissal of unexhausted claims, in order to permit [p]etitioner to exhaust those claims and then add them by amendment to his stayed federal petition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is essentially a variant on the principle that a district court must allow a petitioner to amend a mixed petition to strike unexhausted claims[.]”
2 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.