Gassler v. Bruton’s Empirical Analysis
255 F.3d 492 · 2001
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Lee v. United States · Wolkowitz v. Shearson Lehman Bros. · Crouch v. United States · Paul Kreutzer v. Michael S. Bowersox, Warden, Superintendent · Tiedeman v. Benson
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The doctrine of equitable tolling may apply here, because the limitations period in § 2244(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional bar.... However, equitable tolling is appropriate only under limited conditions, for example where ‘extraordinary circumstances’ beyond a prisoner’s control prevent the timely filing of a petition.... Equitable tolling is also appropriate where the ‘conduct of the defendant has lulled the plaintiff into inaction.’ (omissions in the brief).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Earl v. Fabian
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.