Romero v. Roe’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Picard v. Connor · Anderson v. Harless · Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · Todd Hiivala v. Tana Wood
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 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Should the state courts wish (as will usually be the case) to deny such tardily-filed petitions on timeliness grounds, prisoners will find that the door to the federal courthouse is closed as well.” Romero v. Roe, 130 F.Supp.2d 1148 , 1151 (C.D.Cal.2001) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chavis v. Lemarque“The key question, [for § 2244(d)(2) tolling purposes] is whether a particular petition was resolved on the merits by the state court, not on the particular length of time between the disposition of the earlier petition and the filing of the next.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.