Roettgen v. Copeland’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 36 · 1994
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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)
Relies on Baskett v. United States · Castille v. Peoples · Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · American Tobacco Co. v. Green · Thomas v. Lewis
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ubmitting a new claim to the state's highest court in a procedural context in which its merits will not be considered absent special circumstances does not constitute fair presentation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Knight v. White
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.