Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 F.3d 910 - Nelson v. Campbell

Nelson v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

347 F.3d 910 · 2003

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 2021
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

110200320102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (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 Heck v. Humphrey · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard · Bradley v. Pryor · Hill v. Hopper

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

  1. “bottom line in this case is that the outcome of Nelson's petition has no effect on either his sentence or his conviction, and therefore cannot properly be construed under any circumstances as the equivalent to a subsequent habeas petition.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “merely requests that a different, more humane procedure know as `percutaneous central venous cannulation' be used to carry out his execution, rather than the outmoded and painful `cut down' procedure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “would require making a two inch incision in Nelson's upper arm for the purpose of locating a peripheral vein to perform a central line procedure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.