Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 F. Supp. 2d 715 - Satterfield v. Johnson

218 F. Supp. 2d 715 - Satterfield v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
January 2006
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

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 Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · Carey Warden v. Saffold · McKnight v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Fahy · Burns v. Morton

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

  1. “), 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 9541. 3 The PCRA Court denied Satterfield's PCRA petition on September 21, 1998, which the Superior Court affirmed August 22, 2000. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur on April 30, 2001. 8 On January 23, 2002, Satterfield filed the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that is before us. Magistrate Judge Scuderi initially dismissed the petition as time-barred, but, on September 6, 2002, Judge DuBois remanded for additional consideration of statutory tolling. Judge Dubois ruled that Satterfield's King's Bench Petition was”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[D]ecisions such as Nara v. Frank ... to the extent they hold that petitions untimely under state rules nonetheless may be deemed properly filed, were wrongly decided.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “abundantly clear that the only means of collaterally attacking a conviction is via a PCRA petition.”
    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.