Parisi v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
249 federal appellate · 109 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 846 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Preiser v. Rodriguez (1973), Weinberger v. Salfi (1975)
249 federal appellate · 109 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedJoseph Parisi v. Major General Phillip B. Davidson (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 133 · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 819 · 10 U.S.C. § 832 · 10 U.S.C. § 867 · 10 U.S.C. § 890 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Fay v. Noia · McKart v. United States · Darr v. Burford · Orloff v. Willoughby · United States v. Seeger
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 846 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The basic purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“would also be available to him with reasonable promptness and certainty through the machinery of the military judicial system.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a member of the armed forces has applied for a discharge as a conscientious objector and has exhausted all avenues of administrative relief, it is now settled that he may seek habeas corpus relief in a federal district court on the ground that the denial of his application had no basis in fact.”
4 later decisions 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.