Schandelmeier v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
819 F.2d 52 · 1986
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably Coady v. Vaughn (2001), Harris v. Champion (1994)
23 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Picard v. Connor · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Duckworth v. Serrano · Commonwealth v. Pounds · Sullivan v. Cuyler
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state court exhaustion requirement is mandated by statute under 28 U.S.C. S 2254(b) and has developed through decisional law in applying principles of comity and federalism as to claims brought under 28 U.S.C. S 2241.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he only actions taken by Schandelmeier to obtain state relief on the grounds asserted in his federal petition [were] the letters that he allegedly wrote to the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. Stickman“His habeas petition ... is based entirely upon the delay in the state court’s ruling on his motions, and the concomitant delay in sentencing him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. Stickman
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.