Nelson v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis
714 F.2d 57 · 1983
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably United States ex rel. Sullivan v. Fairman (1984), Purnell v. Missouri Department of Corrections (1985)
19 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Townsend v. Sain · Rose v. Lundy · Anderson v. Harless · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Lyon v. California
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.
“[A] federal habeas petitioner * * * [must] provide the state courts with a “fair opportunity” to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim. It is not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the state courts * * * or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made. In addition, the habeas petitioner must have “fairly presented” to the state courts the “substance” of his federal habeas corpus claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Snethen v. Nix · Brown v. Grammer“The trial court erred in that it allowed the state of Missouri to try petitioner withn [sic] a faulty ‘Information’ ". . See also Nelson v. Solem, 714 F.2d 57 , 60 n. 2 (8th Cir.1983) ("If Nelson's claim could be construed only as a state law claim, then failure to exhaust this claim would not prevent the district court from considering the remaining exhausted federal claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. May v. Maschner
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.