Lookingbill v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis
293 F.3d 256 · 2002
Citation profile
25 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Kenneth Bernard Rouse v. R.C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina (2003), Roberts v. Cockrell (2003)
25 federal appellate ·
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 Duncan v. Walker · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · Blackledge v. Allison · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the margins, all statutes of limitations and filing deadlines appear arbitrary. The AEDPA relies on precise filing deadlines to trigger specific accrual and tolling provisions. Adjusting the deadlines by only a few days in both state and federal courts would make navigating the AEDPA's timetable impossible. Such laxity would reduce predictability and would prevent us from treating the similarly situated equally.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“garden variety claim[s] of excusable neglect”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[fjurther tolling would not encourage [the petitioner] diligently to exhaust state remedies; after the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision [regarding his state habeas application], he had nothing left to do in state court .... After filing his motion for reconsideration with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he had no other possible state remedy. Rather than waiting for the court to rule on a technically forbidden motion, which the court had no obligation to consider within a particular time frame, [the petitioner] filed his federal habeas petition. No one can seriously contend that the reason for untimely filing was that he was waiting for the Court of Criminal Appeals to rule on the motion for reconsideration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Elias v. Davis
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.