Austin v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
200 F.3d 391 · 1999
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker (2001), James Tillema v. Miles Long, Warden Frankie Sue Del Papa (2001)
28 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Lindh v. Murphy · Evitts v. Lucey · William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel · State v. Murnahan · Lindh v. Murphy
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] state petition for post-conviction or other collateral review that does not address one or more of the grounds of the federal habeas petition in question is not a review “with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2), therefore does not toll the one-year AEDPA statute of limitation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Valentine v. Francis · In re Bowen“Just as such state review must concern a federally cognizable claim to toll the AEDPA period of limitation, so also the rule should be that such review must concern a federally cognizable claim that is being made in the instant habeas petition.”
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.