Howard v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
616 F.3d 799 · 2010
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Swint v. Chambers County Commission · Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc. · Rhines v. Weber · Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter · Howard v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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“Rhines effectively balances the state's interest in avoiding delay in a habeas proceeding, with the petitioner's (and the state's) interest in having habeas claims addressed first in state court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kell v. Benzon“challenge[d] the propriety of the stay only as it relate[d] to the merits of whether the district court erred in concluding some of [the petitioner's] claims were unexhausted.”
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.