Patterson v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
251 F.3d 1243 · 2001
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Miranda v. Castro (2002), Marcia Ellen Bunney v. Gwendolyn Mitchell, Warden of the Central California Women's Facility (2001)
41 federal appellate · 8 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)
Relies on Houston v. Lack · George Smith Warden v. Lee Robbins · Mims v. Browning Manufacturing · Willie Lee Miles v. Kw Prunty Attorney General of the State of California · Union Nat Bank of Wichita Kansas v. Lamb
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under California law. C. 7 Welch's next stop on this fourteen year journey was the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of California where, on March 25, 1999, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus raising not the deficient advice of counsel claim he filed in Superior Court in 1994, but only the different claims filed in the California Supreme Court in 1998. 8 On August 11, 1999, appellee Carey filed a motion to dismiss Welch's petition on the ground that it was barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Welch v. Carey“Under the prison 'mailbox rule’ ..., a pro se petitioner's petition is deemed constructively filed at the moment it is delivered to prison officials to be forwarded to the court clerk.” Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 , 1245 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 978 , 122 S.Ct. 406 , 151 L.Ed.2d 308 (2001); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The”
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.