Robert Rodriguez v. Robert Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
252 F.3d 191 · 2001
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections (2004), Harris v. United States (2004)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Frady · Rose v. Lundy · McCleskey v. Zant · Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fact that the Rule 60(b) motion contemplates ultimately the vacating of the conviction is shared with every motion the petitioner might make in the course of pursuing his habeas — motions to compel disclosure or quash the respondent's discovery demands, motions for extension of time to answer the adversary's motion, motions to be provided with legal assistance, motions for summary rejection of respondent's contentions,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ward v. Norris · Rodwell v. Pepe“a motion under Rule 60(b) to vacate a judgment denying habeas is not a second or successive habeas petition and should ... be treated as any other motion under Rule 60(b).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.