Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 15 F.3d 652 - Bleitner v. Welborn

Bleitner v. Welborn’s Empirical Analysis

15 F.3d 652 · 1994

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
September 2014
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Lewis v. Sternes (2004), Lemons v. D O'sullivan (1995)

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

150199420002010decided

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. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Philips Medical Systems International B.V. v. Bruetman · Allen v. Duckworth · United States ex rel. Mattox v. Scott · Thrameah Aziz v. E.S. Leferve and Robert Abrams

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

  1. “[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 6(b)(2) allows a district judge (with inapplicable exceptions) to grant an untimely motion to extend a deadline, provided that the failure to file a timely motion was due to excusable neglect.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “at some point delay in the disposition of a petition for habeas corpus caused by the government's willfully refusing to file a response might infringe the petitioner's right to due process of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “loosened up the deadline for responding.”
    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.