Lindquist v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
770 F.2d 876 · 1985
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Reiger v. Christensen (1986), Tacho v. Martinez (1988)
43 federal appellate · 4 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 United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · Paul Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Petchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Co-Respondents, the State Ofcalifornia, Real Party in Interest, Fawn Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles, County, Co-Respondents, the People Ofthe State of California, Real Party in Interest · Sweet v. Cupp · Dionne v. State
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Normally, a federal court will not entertain a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner has exhausted available state judicial remedies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Craig v. Dw McCarthy
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.