Taliani v. Chrans’s Empirical Analysis
189 F.3d 597 · 1999
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Holland v. Florida (2010), Holland v. Florida (2010)
60 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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
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 Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. · Miller v. New Jersey State Department of Corrections · Davis v. Johnson · Fisher v. Johnson · Borja v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Briones
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“express tolling provisions [of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)] it is unclear what room remains for importing the judge-made doctrine of equitable tolling”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“excuses a timely filing when the plaintiff could not, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered all the information he needed in order to be able to file his claim on time.”
2 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.