Georgevich v. Strauss’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 1078 · 1985
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh (1988), Leamer v. Fauver (2002)
49 federal appellate · 12 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Wolff v. McDonnell · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Gerstein v. Pugh
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he fact that a prisoner's success in the litigation might increase the chance for early release does not, in itself, transform the action into one for habeas corpus.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Pullman abstention is appropriate whenever “there is an unsettled question of state law, the resolution of which would affect the decision of a federal constitutional issue, either by obviating the need to decide it or by changing the light in which it must be viewed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a bare, though unlikely, possibility that state courts might render adjudication of the federal question unnecessary”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.