Kellotat v. Cupp’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 1027 · 1983
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Tacho v. Martinez (1988), Wells v. Maass (1994)
39 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · WILWORDING Et Al. v. SWENSON, WARDEN
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n this case Oregon has provided an adequate and appropriate method for review of Kellotat’s claim in the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. We need not decide whether the Oregon Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to entertain Kellotat’s petition; it is enough that the state statutory scheme and the Court’s own policies militated against reviewing the issue at this procedural stage. That being the case, the mere presentation of the interlocutory petition to the Oregon Supreme Court did not create a fair opportunity for decision, and consequently did not authorize Kellotat to proceed to federal court without seeking a state post-conviction remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement in either of two ways: (1) by presenting the state supreme court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits; or (2) by showing that no state remedies remain available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shaw v. Shimoda“[T]he discretionary jurisdiction of the Oregon Supreme Court and the nature of its exercise are not sufficient to justify a defendant's bypassing that Court in the regular process of exhausting appellate review.”
1 later decision 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.