Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 867 F.2d 1250 - Nichols v. Sullivan

Nichols v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

867 F.2d 1250 · 1989

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Tapia v. Tansy (1991), Fero v. Kerby (1994)

58 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

5101989199020002010decided

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 Wainwright v. Sykes · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo · Picard v. Connor · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites

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

  1. “'was so prejudicial in the context of the proceedings as a whole that [the petitioner] was deprived of the fundamental fairness essential to the concept of due process.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[O]ur responsibility is to ensure that [petitioner] was afforded the protections of due process, not to exercise supervisory powers over the New Mexico state courts.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although the Supreme Court has interpreted the 'fair presentation' standard as requiring more than that 'all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the state courts, ... or that a somewhat similar state-law claim was made,' the language of Picard makes clear that a failure to invoke talismanic language ... should not be the basis for a finding of nonexhaustion.”
    3 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.