Durrani v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 2778 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Sanders 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f petitioner does not proffer a sound reason for delay, 'courts have held that [such petition] should be dismissed if its filing has been delayed for more than several years.' " Rodriguez v. United States , No. 98 Cr. 764 (MHD), 2012 WL 6082477 , at (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2012) (citing Cruz , 2004 WL 1516787 , at ). Moreover, "the appropriate time period in which to analyze a petitioner's delay in filing a coram nobis petition commenced with the date of the deportation order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f petitioner does not proffer a sound reason for delay, 'courts have held that [such petition] should be dismissed if its filing has been delayed for more than several years.'”
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.