Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 674 F.2d 522 - Riley v. Gray

Riley v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

674 F.2d 522 · 1982

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
5
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. Zindros (1983), Gilbert v. Parke (1985)

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

2301982199020002010decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Wainwright v. Sykes · Townsend v. Sain · Jones v. United States

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

  1. “Id. at 494 (footnotes omitted). Here there can be no dispute that appellant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[Ohio’s rules generally] provide an adequate procedural mechanism for the litigation of fourth-amendment claims because the state affords a litigant an opportunity to raise his claims in a fact-finding hearing and on direct appeal of an unfavorable decision.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “a criminal defendant [who was] not allowed to fully present his Fourth Amendment claim in the state courts because of unanticipated and unforeseeable application of a procedural rule which prevent[ed] state court consideration of the merits of the claim.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.