Pitchess v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
129 federal appellate · 25 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 394 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Castille v. Peoples (1989), Woodford Warden v. Garceau (2003)
129 federal appellate · 25 district · 11 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedDavis v. Pitchess (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Younger v. Harris · Picard v. Connor · Royall · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return
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 394 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Neither Rule 60(b), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , nor the two read together, permit a federal habeas court to maintain a continuing supervision over a retrial conducted pursuant to a conditional writ granted by the habeas court.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody purs.uant 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. (c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the exhaustion doctrine is to prevent “unnecessary conflict between courts equally bound to guard and protect rights secured by the Constitution,” Ex Parte Royall, supra, at 251 [ 117 U.S. 241 , 6 S.Ct. 734 , 29 L.Ed. 868 ], it is not sufficient merely that the federal habeas applicant has been through the state courts. The rule would serve no purpose if it could be satisfied by raising one claim in the state courts and another in the federal courts.”
3 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.