Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 782 F.2d 53 - Sampson v. Love

Sampson v. Love’s Empirical Analysis

782 F.2d 53 · 1986

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
August 2012
most recently cited

28 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably James Howard Turner v. State of Tennessee (1988), Demarest v. Price (1997)

28 federal appellate ·

2501986199020002010decided

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 · Anderson v. Harless · Bowsher v. SmithKline Corp. · Saia v. United States

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

  1. “[W]here the state's [post-conviction] process is open to interpretation with respect to the availability of relief via that process, the state should be given an opportunity to adopt that interpretation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The state courts must be provided with a 'fair opportunity' to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon the petitioner's constitutional claim.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is not enough that all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the state court, ... or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made . " Id. (citation omitted). The purpose of the exhaustion requirement is "to protect the state court's role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings.”
    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.