Sceifers v. Trigg’s Empirical Analysis
46 F.3d 701 · 1995
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2022
8 federal appellate ·
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Evitts v. Lucey · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Polk County v. Dodson · Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since delays of seventeen months and three and one-half years ... [have been] considered inordinate, Sceifer's delay of eleven years would certainly qualify as inordinate too.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) if there is no state corrective process available, or (2) if circumstances exist which render such process ineffective to protect the prisoner's rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Christie v. Krenke“'[a] federal habeas petitioner is required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b) to exhaust state remedies before a federal court will consider his claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Christie v. Krenke
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.