Galtieri v. Wainwright’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 348 · 1978
Citation profile
134 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 306 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Rose v. Lundy (1982), Washington v. Strickland (1982)
134 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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.
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Haines v. Kerner · United States v. Agurs · Wainwright v. Sykes
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 306 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” (emphasis added).”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The policy in this Circuit is that a federal district court must dismiss without prejudice a “mixed” petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner. A “mixed” petition is one that asserts both exhausted claims and unexhausted claims that do not fit an exception to the exhaustion doctrine; that is, some of the claims have not been presented to the state court system so that the custodial state has not yet had an opportunity to correct all of the alleged constitutional errors.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[considerations of comity, avoidance of piecemeal litigation, economy of judicial energy, and the fullest consideration of a petitioner’s claims are best served if all of a petitioner’s claims are presented to the state court system at one time. If he is not afforded relief, then he may petition the federal court for a review of all his claims. The goal is to have a petitioner, travel through each system only once, at most, in his quest for vindication of alleged constitutional errors.”
5 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.