Duncan v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
1,848 federal appellate · 942 district · 154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6,644 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Mead Corp. (2001), Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Department of Justice (2006)
1,848 federal appellate · 942 district · 154 state decisions — followed in 34 states
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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2263 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · Rose v. Lundy · Lindh v. Murphy · Russello v. United States
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 6,644 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is `a cardinal principle of statutory construction' that `a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.'”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is our duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fail v. Hubbard · Fail v. Hubbard
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.