Olson v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis
965 F.2d 940 · 1992
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Oyler v. Allenbrand (1994), Roman-Nose v. New Mexico Department of Human Services (1992)
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 Conley v. Gibson · Haines v. Kerner · Neitzke v. Williams · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois
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.
“[f]ederal courts have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a state judge,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Probationary status is sufficiently 'in custody' pursuant to section 2254 to permit habeas relief. Moreover, even if the probationary period has expired by now, a petition for habeas relief is not moot, so long as the petition was filed during the probationary period and the conviction will have adverse collateral consequences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in custody” to obtain relief under § 2254, Ms. Hamilton was also sentenced to five years' probation in Case Nos. 15-1433 and 15-1488. Such “ [probationary status is sufficiently ‘in custody’ pursuant to section 2254 to permit habeas relief,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hamilton v. Bird
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.