Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 464 U.S. 1053 - McKaskle v. Vela

McKaskle v. Vela’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

157
cited by 157 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2002
most recently cited

88 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 157 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2002 · most notably United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988), Brooks v. Kemp (1985)

88 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

770198419902000decided

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 Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Duckworth v. Serrano · Webb v. Webb

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

  1. “a petitioner can successfully claim that he has presented the same legal theory to the state court [if he] present[s] the substance of a federal claim in such a manner that it 'must have been likely to alert the court to the claim's federal nature.' " 9 See also McKaskle v. Vela, 464 U.S. 1053 , 1055, 104 S.Ct. 736, 737, 79 L.Ed.2d 195 (1984) (Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, dissenting from denial of certiorari) ("Of course, the state courts have the entire record, and thus the essential facts, before them in every constitutional case. But that is obviously beside the point. The exhaustion rule requires that the habeas petitioner ... identify for the state courts' attention the constitutional claim alleged to be inherent in those facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.