Young v. Ragen’s Empirical Analysis
337 U.S. 235 · 1949
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 6 district · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 292 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably 660 So. 2d 1189 - State Ex Rel. Glover v. State (1995), Darr v. Burford (1950)
87 federal appellate · 6 district · 103 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Marino v. Ragen · Woods v. Nierstheimer · Loftus v. People of State of Illinois
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 292 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies, to which this Court has required the scrupulous adherence of all federal courts, Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 [ 64 S.Ct. 448 , 88 L.Ed. 572 (1944)] and cases cited, presupposes that some adequate state remedy exists. We recognize the difficulties with which the Illinois Supreme Court is faced in adapting available state procedures to the requirement that prisoners be given some clearly defined method by which they may raise claims of denial of federal rights. Nevertheless, that requirement must be met.” Young v. Ragen, 337 U.S. at 238-239 , 69 S.Ct. at 1074-75 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cutbirth v. State · Harris v. State“[I]t is not simply a question of state procedure when a state court of last resort closes the door to any consideration of a claim of denial of a federal right. And that is the effect of the denials of habeas corpus in a number of cases now before this Court, for in none of the cases does the Attorney General suggest that either of the other two Illinois post-trial remedies, writ of error and coram nobis , is appropriate. Unless habeas corpus is available, therefore, we are led to believe that Illinois offers no post-trial remedy in cases of this kind.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.