Hankins v. Fulcomer’s Empirical Analysis
941 F.2d 246 · 1991
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Harris v. Champion (1994), Lawrence Lines v. David Larkins Warden (2000)
17 federal appellate ·
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 · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Frank v. Mangum · Castille v. Peoples · WILWORDING Et Al. v. SWENSON, WARDEN
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rests upon the principles of comity and judicial economy. The requirement provides state courts with an initial opportunity to consider and correct alleged violations of prisoners' rights without disruption from the federal courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wise v. Fulcomer
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.