Ross v. Artuz’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.3d 97 · 1998
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 209 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2015 · most notably George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker (2001), Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett (2000)
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
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)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Lindh v. Murphy · McCleskey v. Zant · Block v. North Dakota Board of University and School Lands North Dakota Board of University and School Lands · Texaco, Inc. v. Short
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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he 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”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A petition may be dismissed if it appears that the state of which the respondent is an officer has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by delay in its filing unless the petitioner shows that it is based on grounds which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred.”
3 later decisions 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.