Batchelor v. Cupp’s Empirical Analysis
693 F.2d 859 · 1982
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Granberry v. Greer (1987), Russell v. Rolfs (1990)
83 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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 Wainwright v. Sykes · Davis v. Alaska · Fay v. Noia · Stone v. Powell · Engle v. Isaac
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Habeas corpus relief for an asserted due process violation is available only where the state court's action is arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“from the basic principle of federalism that federal courts should accord due respect to the role of state courts in enforcing the prohibition against unconstitutional confinement embodied in the writ of habeas corpus. The exhaustion doctrine also serves the interests of judicial economy. State courts should have the first opportunity to examine the lawfulness of a state prisoner's confinement. If the prisoner's claim is meritorious, and if the state remedy is prompt and complete, there is no need to bring post-conviction proceedings in federal courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) by providing the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits of the claim ...; or (2) by showing that at the time the petitioner files the habeas petition in federal court no state remedies are available to the petitioner and the petitioner had not deliberately by-passed the state remedies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.