Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 F.3d 931 - Emerson v. Johnson

Emerson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

243 F.3d 931 · 2001

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
May 2020
most recently cited

32 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Nara v. Frank (2001), Merritt v. Blaine (2003)

32 federal appellate ·

480200120102020decided

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 Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · Barr v. City of Columbia · Lovasz v. Vaughn · Williams v. Cain · Feliz Talaz Villegas v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

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

  1. “[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 majority
  2. “since habeas petitioners ... may be unable to predict whether the Texas courts would apply the literal language of [the rule prohibiting motions for reconsideration] or the holdings of [the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cases considering such motions], many would bypass the possible state court consideration of their claims and move directly to federal court [if the time during which they filed their motion for reconsideration did not toll the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “given Artuz and Texas case law allowing habeas petitioners to file suggestions or motions for reconsideration, AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations is tolled during the period in which a Texas habeas petitioner has filed such a motion.”
    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.