Lanigan v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 40 · 1988
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Scarpa v. Dubois (1994), Dion Smallwood v. Gary Gibson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma - (1999)
24 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wainwright v. Sykes · Delaware v. Van Arsdall
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Although the legal theory behind the claim raised to the state and federal courts must be the same, ‘[t]his does not mean that the petitioner must have expressed the theory in precisely the same terms.’ Gagne v. Fair, 835 F.2d 6, 7 (1st Cir.1987). See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 277 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (‘[Tjhere are instances in which “the ultimate question for disposition” ... will be the same despite variations in the legal theory or factual allegations urged in its support.’) [The petitioner]^ claim to both the state and federal courts depends upon resolution of the same question — whether the language of the trial judge’s instructions gave a clear sense of the degree of proof necessary to convict. This is unquestionably a case in which the difference in petitioner’s arguments to the state and federal courts represented ‘a mere variation[] in the same claim rather than a different legal theory,’ Wilks v. Israel, 627 F.2d 32, 38 (7th Cir.1980). Such a difference does not preclude exhaustion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he exhaustion doctrine requires that a state defendant seeking to overturn his conviction on federal grounds first must give the state courts 'a fair opportunity' to consider his claims. (citation omitted). This means that the habeas corpus petitioner must have presented the substance of his federal constitutional claim to the state appellate courts so that the state had the first chance to correct the claimed constitutional error.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 87, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), a defendant's failure to object at his state trial may constitute 'an independent and adequate state procedural ground' sufficient to foreclose federal habeas corpus review if the state has a contemporaneous objection rule and has not waived its application.”
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.