Thompson v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.3d 1088 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Swint v. Chambers County Commission · Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc. · 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A district court order staying proceedings to allow a state habeas petition to exhaust claims in state court is reviewable on appeal after final judgment. Similarly, any error that the district court made in determining whether certain claims had been exhausted can be remedied fully on appeal from the final judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stanley v. Chappell“fails the third condition [of the collateral order doctrine] 'because a district court's conclusion about whether a habeas claim has been exhausted is addressable on appeal after final judgment.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kell v. Benzon“[a] district court order staying proceedings to allow a state habeas petition to exhaust claims in state court is reviewable on appeal after final judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kell v. Benzon
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.