Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 762 F.2d 429 - Richardson v. Procunier

Richardson v. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis

762 F.2d 429 · 1985

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
August 2010
most recently cited

11 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel (1999), Whitehead v. Johnson (1998)

11 federal appellate ·

2101985199020002010decided

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 Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Darr v. Burford · Carter v. Estelle · Wheat v. Mississippi

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We decide here that a Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief has not exhausted his state remedies when, in directly appealing his state criminal conviction, he failed to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for review of his conviction, notwithstanding that petitions for review of convictions before that court are accepted only on a discretionary basis. tt "... [W]e hold that a Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief who, in directly appealing his state criminal conviction, has by-passed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will not be deemed to have exhausted his state remedies until he has raised his claims before the state’s highest court through collateral review provided by state habeas procedures.” Id. at 429, 432 (footnote omitted).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... [W]e hold that a Texas inmate seeking federal habeas relief who, in directly appealing his state criminal conviction, has by-passed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will not be deemed to have exhausted his state remedies until he has raised his claims before the state's highest court through collateral review provided by state habeas procedures.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “say with certainty whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would accept review in a given case.”
    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.