30 F. Supp. 2d 1246 - Sperling v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Roger Marsh v. Rick Soares (2000), Ronald Jones v. Willis Morton, Warden of Trenton State Prison Attorney General of the State of New Jersey (1999)
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Wilson v. Garcia · Rose v. Lundy · Lindh v. Murphy · Bennett v. Spear
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A natural reading of the statute concludes that section 2244(d)(2) does not contemplate tolling limitations during the time a habeas petition is pending in federal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Equitable tolling will not be available in most cases, as extensions of time will only be granted if ‘extraordinary circumstances’ beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.... We have no doubt that district judges will take seriously Congress’s desire to accelerate the federal habeas process, and will only authorize extensions when this high hurdle is surmounted.”
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.