Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 315 F.3d 1063 - Kelly v. Small

Kelly v. Small’s Empirical Analysis

315 F.3d 1063 · 2002

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Koerner v. Grigas (2003), Cassett v. Stewart (2005)

39 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

850200220102020decided

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

  1. “[t]he 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.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “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.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is essentially a variant on the principle that a district court must allow a petitioner to amend a mixed petition to strike unexhausted claims[.]”
    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.