Massaline v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

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

1. “We recognize that the mechanics for administering this Court's adoption of a mailbox rule may require some refinements after it is put in practice. Whether the unrepresented inmate-litigant delivered his court papers to the prison officials on or before the court deadline will be the question. Absent an established system for logging the date an inmate's outgoing legal mail is delivered to prison officials, a pro se prisoner may prove the timeliness of his filing in, at least, the following ways: (a) an official United States Postal Service post-mark showing a date before the deadline will be conclusive; (b) the date on the certificate of service will give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the prisoner handed his filing to the prison officials on that date; or (c) an affidavit reflecting the date and the fact the prisoner provided his legal filing with sufficient prepaid postage for first-class mail will give rise to a rebuttable presumption. The State may rebut the presumption that arises when a litigant relies on methods (b) or (c) by proving that, contrary to the representation in the certificate of service or affidavit, the prisoner delivered his application or notice of appeal to the prison officials after the deadline for filing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hackney v. State

2. “Unlike litigants who are not incarcerated, pro se prisoners cannot monitor the processing of their appellate filings to ensure that the clerk of the court timely receives them .... And, of course, being pro se, they cannot rely on their lawyer to ensure the safe and timely filing of their appeals. Pro se prisoners also must entrust their legal papers to the prison officials, even though the warden is typically the named defendant in a habeas corpus action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. Williams

3. “If an unsuccessful petitioner desires to appeal, he must file a written application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal with the clerk of the Supreme Court within 30 days from the entry of the order denying him relief. The petitioner shall also file within the same period a notice of appeal with the clerk of the concerned superior court. The Supreme Court shall either grant or deny the application within a reasonable time after filing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wade v. Battle