McNair v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.3d 1291 · 2005
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Ward v. Hall (2010), Pike v. Guarino (2007)
66 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
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 Strickland v. Washington · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky · Coleman v. Thompson · Picard v. Connor
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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Habeas petitioners generally cannot raise claims in federal court if those claims were not first exhausted in state court. In order to be exhausted, a federal claim must be fairly presented to the state courts. “It is not sufficient merely that the federal habeas petitioner has been through the state courts ... nor is it sufficient that all the facts necessary to support the claim were before the state courts or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made.” Rather, in order to ensure that state courts have the first opportunity to hear all claims, federal courts have required a state prisoner to present the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the federal courts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If read in a vacuum, this dicta might be thought to create a low floor indeed for petitioners seeking to establish exhaustion. However, we agree with the district court that this language must be “applied with common sense and in light of the purpose underlying the exhaustion requirement!:] ‘to afford the state courts a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error without interference from the federal judiciary.’ ” McNair [v. Campbell ], 315 F.Supp.2d [1179] at 1184 [(M.D.Ala. 2004)] (quoting Vasques v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257 , 106 S.Ct. 617, 620 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986)). This is consistent with settled law established by the Supreme Court.... We therefore hold that “ ‘[t]he exhaustion doctrine requires a habeas applicant to do more than scatter some makeshift needles in the haystack of the state court record.’ ””
2 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.