Markham v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
978 F.3d 993 · 1992
Citation profile
29 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably McPherson v. McBride (1999), Hoover v. Wagner (1995)
29 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
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Whalen v. United States · Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League · Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Agnew · Coniston Corporation v. Village of Hoffman Estates
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Federal prisoners are required (by judicial rule, not statute) to exhaust their administrative remedies before they can seek relief under the federal prisoner’s habeas corpus surrogate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 _ The case for exhaustion of administrative remedies by state prisoners is stronger. Federal courts should not intrude into the relations between a state and its convicted criminals until the state has had a chance to correct its own mistakes. Indiana has established a corrective process for prisoners aggrieved by disciplinary sanctions; we hold that prisoners must use it before turning to the federal courts. Our conclu sion is reinforced by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (c), which provides that ‘an applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of [section 2254(b) ], if he had the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Owens · Nelson v. McBride“how states carve up adjudicative functions between courts and agencies is in general and in this particular no business of the federal courts, for the Constitution does not prescribe any particular allocation or separation of powers among the states. . . . If one state wants to use an administrative body where another state would use a conventional 'court,' its choice is a matter of indifference from the standpoint of the principles of federalism and comity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the remedies available in the courts of the State”
1 later decision 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.