Whippler v. Balkcom’s Empirical Analysis
342 F.2d 388 · 1965
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2007 · most notably Labat v. Bennett (1966), Peters v. Rutledge (1968)
63 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia · Brown v. Allen · Darr v. Burford · Henry v. State of Mississippi
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The current law of exhaustion is, at the very least, this: A habeas applicant who has sought direct review of his conviction (including all the constitutional issues raised in his habeas petition) in the highest state court, even though he has sought neither certiorari in the United States Supreme Court nor collateral review in any state court, has exhausted his state remedies. If the habeas petitioner raises constitutional issues he has never presented to the state courts, and if the applicant may still present those issues, he must first exhaust his state remedies before applying for federal habeas corpus.” Whippler v. Balkcom, 342 F.2d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 1965) (Emphasis supplied).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Showers v. Lloyd · Dixon v. Florida
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.