Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 F.3d 1133 - King v. Ryan

King v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

564 F.3d 1133 · 2009

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
January 2025
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2025

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

180200920102020decided

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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Duncan v. Walker · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Royall · Rhines v. Weber

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

  1. “(1) a petitioner to amend his petition to delete any unexhausted claims; (2) the court in its discretion to stay and hold in abeyance the amended, fully exhausted petition, providing the petitioner the opportunity to proceed to state court to exhaust the deleted claims; and (3) once the claims have been exhausted in state court, the petitioner to return to federal court and amend[ ] his federal petition to include the newly-exhausted claims.” King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133 , 1139. (9th Cir.2009).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[A] petitioner may amend a new claim into a pending federal habeas petition after the expiration of the limitations period only if the new claim shares a common core of operative facts’ with the claims in the pending petition; a new claim does not ‘relate back’ to the filing of an exhausted petition simply because it arises from ‘the same trial, conviction, or sentence.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Rhines applies to stays of mixed petitions”
    1 later decision 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.