Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 15 F.3d 29 - Lugo v. Keane

Lugo v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis

15 F.3d 29 · 1994

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
September 2022
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2022

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

901994200020102020decided

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. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Sanders v. United States · McCleskey v. Zant · Mmahat v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. · Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[n]o principle is more fundamental to our system of judicial administration than that a person is entitled to notice before adverse judicial action is taken against him.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a district court may not properly dismiss a habeas petition on the ground of abuse of the writ without providing the petitioner with notice of the proposed dismissal and an opportunity to be heard in opposition.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “provides for a sua sponte dismissal of a habeas petition on its merits, to be followed by notice,”
    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.