Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 823 F.2d 1256 - Offet v. Solem

Offet v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis

823 F.2d 1256 · 1987

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
July 2023
most recently cited

69 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Bressman v. Farrier (1991), Young v. Kenny (1989)

69 federal appellate ·

75019871990200020102020decided

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 · Allen v. McCurry · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank

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

  1. “Although the issue was never raised by the parties, and although, as the Court properly concedes, the issue has absolutely no bearing on the disposition of this case, the Court nevertheless has seen fit to observe that it "ha[s] no occasion to decide" whether federal courts should "abstain” from deciding a state prisoner's § 1983 suit for damages stemming from an unlawful conviction pending that prisoner’s exhaustion of collateral state-court challenges to his conviction. The reasons why the Court has no "occasion” to decide this question are clear enough: The question was never pressed or passed upon below, never briefed or argued in this Court, and, because respondent Glover has already exhausted all state-court remedies, the issue has no bearing whatsoever on the proper resolution of the controversy we have been called upon to decide.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “deprive a state court system of the first opportunity to address the merits of the underlying constitutional issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[p]erhaps the answer is that the policy favoring exhaustion is not the only policy operating in this area. There is also a policy, stated by Congress in Sec. 1983, making available a federal forum for actions complaining of deprivation of federal rights under color of state law.”
    1 later decision 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.