Jones v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “Exhaustion requires a petitioner fairly to present the federal claim in state court. See Strogov v. Att’y Gen. of N.Y., 191 F.3d 188, 191 (2d Cir.1999). “A petitioner has ‘fairly presented’ his claim only if he has ‘informed the state court of both the factual and the legal premises of the claim he asserts in federal court.’ ” Dorsey v. Kelly, 112 F.3d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting Daye [v. Att’y Gen. of N.Y., 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982) (en banc) ]). The claim presented to the state court, in other words, must be the “substantial equivalent” of the claim raised in the federal habeas petition. Strogov, 191 F.3d at 191 (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 278 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971)).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 702 F. Supp. 2d 155 - Bumpus v. WARDEN, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · 92 F. App'x 822 - Simpson v. Greiner

2. ““The exhaustion requirement springs primarily from considerations of comity between the federal and state judicial systems. By requiring exhaustion, federal courts recognize that state courts, no less than federal courts, are bound to safeguard the federal rights of state criminal defendants. Besides serving to minimize friction between our federal and state systems of justice, the exhaustion requirement has the salutary practical effect of enhancing the familiarity of state courts with federal constitutional issues.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Parker v. Kelchner

3. “[W]e conclude that a habeas petitioner to whom the writ has been granted on one or more grounds may not assert, in opposition to an appeal by the state, any ground that the district court has not adopted unless the petitioner obtains a certificate of appealability permitting him to argue that ground.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Manokey v. Waters