Petrucelli v. Coombe’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.2d 684 · 1984
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Grey v. Hoke (1991), Verdin v. O'Leary (1992)
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 Ashe v. Swenson · Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Smith v. Phillips · Oregon v. Kennedy
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) reliance on pertinent federal cases employing constitutional analysis, (b) reliance on state cases employing constitutional analysis in like fact situations, (c) assertion of the claim in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific right protected by the Constitution, and (d) allegation of a pattern of facts that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Franklin v. Rose · Grady v. LeFevre““Alleging lack of a fair trial does not convert every complaint ... into a federal due process claim.” Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d at 193 (quoting Kirksey v. Jones, 673 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir.1982)).... “Due process,” like “fair trial,” can be a catchphrase used by habeas petitioners as part of an allegation about any type of trial court error, including errors in rulings based on state law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims is presented to a federal district court, that court must dismiss the petition thus giving the prisoner the option of returning to state court to litigate his unexhausted claims or amending his district court petition to delete them.”
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.