Flanagan v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
154 F.3d 196 · 1998
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Davis v. Johnson (1998), Fisher v. Johnson (1999)
57 federal appellate · 3 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.
Relationships
Relies on Lindh v. Murphy · Malloy v. Hogan · Jones v. Barnes · Caspari Superintendent Missouri Eastern Correctional Center et al Bohlen · Lonchar v. Thomas
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (2) 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.”
3 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 any period of limitation under this subsection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coleman v. Johnson · Ott v. Johnson“the date on which the [state court] judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Davis · Osborne v. Hall
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.