Castille v. Peoples’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
440 federal appellate · 220 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,515 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Coleman v. Thompson (1991), Teague v. Lane (1989)
440 federal appellate · 220 district · 15 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Teague v. Lane · Fay v. Noia · Rose v. Lundy · Brown v. Allen
Cited together with Coleman v. Thompson · Strickland v. Washington · Murray v. Carrier · Picard v. Connor · Rose v. Lundy
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 1,515 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant 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 a right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]nce the state courts have ruled upon a claim, it is not necessary for a petitioner 'to ask the state court for collateral relief, based upon the same evidence and issues already decided by direct review.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mills v. Maass · Duncan v. Barreras“[W]here [a] claim has been presented for the first and only time in a procedural context in which its merits will not be considered unless there are special and important reasons therefor, [it will not] constitute fair presentation.”
8 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.