Edwards v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monroe v. Pape · Robinson v. State of California · Trop v. Dulles · Price v. Johnston
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Administrative bodies are policy-making and discretionary. Also, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a situation in which a final administrative determination lias not yet been arrived at, and a situation in which an administrative ‘remedy’ lias not yet been exhausted.” Edwards v. Schmidt, 321 F. Supp. 68 , 76 n. 6 (W.D.Wis.1971)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court * * * on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Follette“Developments in the Law — Federal Habeas Corpus,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Follette
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.