Case Citator › O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

O'Sullivan v. Boerckel

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
526 U.S. 838
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
136 of 136
Citing cases (total)
6,800
Treatment dates
2001
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel is limited by the confirmed treatment listed below. Review of every flagged citation is complete.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

6,800 later cases cite O'Sullivan v. Boerckel; 136 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on O'Sullivan v. Boerckel?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Eighth Circuit declined to apply O'Sullivan's exhaustion bar to Missouri prisoners who reasonably relied on the State's contrary pre-O'Sullivan practice.

    Dixon v. Dormire · Eighth Circuit · filed

    Now that the Supreme Court has clarified that the exhaustion doctrine requires a petitioner to seek this type of discretionary review, the State understandably relies on current Supreme Court precedent to assert the statutory bar. We do not imply that this is itself improper; we hold only that the exhaustion doctrine should not be applied in these cases because these particular Petitioners had no reasonable notice that the State would change horses in midstream and assert the Petitioners’ failure to seek discretionary review in state court as a defense to their federal habeas claims.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads O'Sullivan v. Boerckel and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace