Caldwell v. Line’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 494 · 1982
Citation profile
24 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Gartrell v. Gaylor (1993), Serio v. Members of Louisiana State Board of Pardons (1987)
24 federal appellate ·
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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Preiser v. Rodriguez · Rose v. Lundy · Swansboro Country, Inc. v. Lumberman's Mortgage Co. · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · Union Labor Life Insurance v. Pireno
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the appropriate cause of action is a petition for habeas corpus, even though the facts of the complaint might otherwise be sufficient to state a claim under § 1983.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he propriety of a prisoner’s § 1983 action is not to be determined solely on the basis of the relief sought, i.e., monetary damages as opposed to relief from confinement, but instead the federal court must examine the basis of the complaint and determine whether the claim, if proven, would factually undermine or conflict with validity of the state court conviction which resulted in the prisoner’s confinement. If the basis of the § 1983 claim does go to the constitutionality of the state court conviction, the exclusive remedy is habeas corpus relief with the comity inspired prerequisites of exhaustion of state remedies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that a district court considered the merits of an exhausted claim in a mixed petition, the appellate court would review the merits of the claim if presented with the issue. We believe that the policies underlying the exhaustion doctrine would not be furthered by dismissal of a petition whose exhausted claims had already been ruled upon, albeit erroneously. The vitality of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burns v. Wj Estelle
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.