Smaldone v. Senkowski’s Empirical Analysis
273 F.3d 133 · 2001
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Doe v. Menefee (2004), Kenneth Bernard Rouse v. R.C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina (2003)
45 federal appellate · 1 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Duncan v. Walker · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Bates v. United States · Kevin Smith v. Michael McGinnis Superintendent, Southport Correctional Facility · Sandvik 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ttorney error [is] inadequate to create the `extraordinary' circumstances equitable tolling requires.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“attorney error inadequate to create the 'extraordinary' circumstances equitable tolling requires”); Fahy v. Horn, 240 F.3d 239 , 244 (3d Cir.2001) (“In non-capital cases, attorney error, miscalculation, inadequate research, or other mistakes have not been found to rise to the 'extraordinary' circumstances required for equitable tolling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miranda v. Castro“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.”
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.