Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 F.3d 977 - Fernandez v. Sternes

Fernandez v. Sternes’s Empirical Analysis

227 F.3d 977 · 2000

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
January 2025
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Carey Warden v. Saffold (2002), Ronnie Lee Gibson v. Ken Klinger - (2000)

24 federal appellate · 2 district ·

480200020102020decided

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)

Relies on Harris v. Reed · Jesus Nino v. George Galaza Attorney General of the State of California · Tony Bruce Bennett v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent · Swartz v. Meyers · Gendron v. United States

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

  1. “after the time for further review has expired without further action to continue the litigation . . . would sap the federal statute of limitations of much of its effect.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it is sensible to say that a petition continues to be 'pending' during the period between one court's decision and a timely request for further review by a higher court (provided that such a request is filed).”
    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.