Hartley v. Neely’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.2d 780 · 1983
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2018
7 federal appellate · 2 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 Abney v. United States · United States v. Dinitz · Robinson v. Wade · Drayton v. Hayes · Benson v. Superior Court Department of Trial Court of Massachusetts
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the case of a double jeopardy claim the exhaustion requirement may be satisfied before a final judgment was rendered in a State court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a petitioner in state custody can only be assured freedom from double jeopardy by giving him access to habeas review prior to a second trial”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Deedy v. Suzuki“[P]retrial habeas corpus review is appropriate in those cases where, as here, all other state remedies were exhausted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mannes v. Gillespie
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.