Smith v. Wa Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
297 F.3d 809 · 2002
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · Yates v. Gober · Willie Lee Miles v. Kw Prunty Attorney General of the State of California · 34 Cal. 2d 300 - In Re Swain · 62 Cal. 2d 218 - In Re Waltreus
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) (1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (2) 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once Smith was notified that his petition was subject to dismissal based on AEDPA's statute of limitations and the record indicated that Smith's petition fell outside the one-year time period, Smith had the burden of demonstrating that the limitation period was sufficiently tolled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Griffin v. Rogers“delivered and accepted in compliance with 'the applicable laws and rules governing filings.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chavis v. Lemarque
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.