Turnage v. Fabian’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “Before seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2254, a prisoner ordinarily must “fairly present” his federal claims to the state courts. See, e.g., Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 , 124 S.Ct. 1347 , 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004). This requirement serves the salutary purpose of giving states the “opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of [their] prisoners’ federal rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 , 115 S.Ct. 887 , 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971)). The onus rests on the prisoner to present the substance of his federal claims “in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review).” Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 29 , 124 S.Ct. 1347 ; see also Henry, 513 U.S. at 365-66 , 115 S.Ct. 887 (“If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution.”). It is not enough to recite “only ... the facts necessary to state a claim for relief,” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 163 , 116 S.Ct. 2074 , 135 L.Ed.2d 457 (1996) (citing Picard, 404 U.S. 270 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 ), or to “make a general appeal to a constitutional guarantee as broad as due process,” id. (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 , 103 S.Ct. 276 , 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lotter v. Houston