White v. Klitzkie’s Empirical Analysis
281 F.3d 920 · 2002
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2261 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2263 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 48 U.S.C. § 1424 · 48 U.S.C. § 1424
Relies on Duncan v. Walker · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Yates v. Gober · Willie Lee Miles v. Kw Prunty Attorney General of the State of California · City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of WauKesha
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hile the application is one for State post-conviction relief, just as state criminal proceedings can raise federal issues renewable in the United States Supreme Court, so can state habeas proceedings. A state criminal proceeding ... is still “pending” even though the state courts are finished with it, until any petition filed is finally decided. Similarly, if there is a certiorari petition pending to review the validity of the state’s denial of such an application for state post-conviction review, the application is still “pending” — that is, not finally decided. The application does not thereby stop being a state habeas pror ceeding or'turn into a federal rather than a state application; it is just not finally decided yet.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Abela v. Martin“[T]he period of `direct review' . . . includes the [90-day] period within which a petitioner can file a petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, whether or not the petitioner actually files such a petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Summers v. Schriro“final by the conclusion of direct review,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Summers v. Schriro
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.