McQuown v. Dj McCartney’s Empirical Analysis
795 F.2d 807 · 1986
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Tacho v. Martinez (1988), Kim v. Cj Villalobos (1986)
50 federal appellate · 1 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 Rose v. Lundy · United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · Hudson v. Palmer · Libby, McNeill & Libby v. Alaska Industrial Board · 33 Cal. 3d 572 - People v. Fosselman
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A denial of a hearing of a court of appeal decision may be taken as an approval of the conclusion there reached, but not necessarily of all the reasoning contained in the opinion. But this denial does not established that if the court of appeal decides on procedural grounds, the supreme court can expand its consideration to substantive grounds, not ad dressed by the court of appeal. Under the rules of appeal a denial may mean no more than that a ground which the court deems adequate for ordering a hearing has not been brought to its attention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tacho v. Martinez“A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement either by providing the highest state court with an opportunity to rule on the merits of his federal claims or by showing that at the time petitioner filed a habeas petition in federal court, he had no state remedies available and had not deliberately bypassed them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mullin v. Estelle
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.