Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 F.3d 1515 - Esslinger v. Davis

Esslinger v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

44 F.3d 1515 · 1995

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Trest v. Cain (1997), United States v. Pielago (1998)

27 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

280199520002010decided

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 · Gideon v. Wainwright · Hill v. Lockhart · Wainwright v. Sykes · Fay v. Noia

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

  1. “If, for example, the case presents an issue on which an unresolved question of fact or of state law might have an important bearing, both comity and judicial efficiency may make it appropriate for the [district] court to insist on complete exhaustion to make sure that it may ultimately review the issue on a fully informed basis.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If the petitioner is to be afforded due process, he must receive notice of the court's inclination to interpose the default, an opportunity to demonstrate 'cause' for the default and 'prejudice,' and, if material issues of fact are present, an opportunity to present his evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “district court may invoke the [procedural default] bar sua sponte [only] where ... requiring the petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his claims serves an important federal interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.