Flanders v. Graves’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is our duty to apply statutes as written. The statute fixes a one-year period of limitations, and says nothing about actual innocence, even though other parts of AEDPA, enacted at the same time, do refer to this doctrine. It is not our place to engraft an additional judge-made exception onto congressional language that is clear on its face.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kevin Cooper v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden, San Quentin State Prison, San Quentin, California · Henderson v. Thaler

2. “Dismissal of a first federal habe-as petition is a particularly serious matter, for that dismissal denies the petitioner the protections of the Great Writ entirely, risking injury to an important interest in human liberty.”). 15 . An example of such a situation is this case, where Souter delayed filing his habeas petition until he received the last affidavit from Edward Gundy. If the Gundy affidavit had provided new evidence, the case would have proceeded directly to consideration of his underlying constitutional claims. We concluded, however, that the Gundy affidavit failed to provide any new evidence, and therefore, the petition was untimely. As a result, Souter is required to first demonstrate a credible claim of actual innocence before a habeas court may reach the merits of his constitutional claims. 16 . We decline to adopt the approach outlined by the Eighth Circuit in Flanders, which imposes a requirement that the petitioner show "action or inaction on the part of the respondent that prevented him from discovering the relevant facts in a timely fashion or ... that a reasonably diligent petitioner could not have discovered these facts in time to file a petition within the period of limitations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Souter v. Jones

3. “action or inaction on the part of the respondent that prevented him from discovering the relevant facts in a timely fashion or ... that a reasonably diligent petitioner could not have discovered these facts in time to file a petition within the period of limitations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Souter v. Jones