Fadayiro v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Estelle v. Gamble · Haines v. Kerner · Neitzke v. Williams · Landgraf v. USI Film Products
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ignorance of the law does not justify equitable tolling of a statute of limitations.”); Henderson v. Johnson, 1 F.Supp.2d at 656 (claims that petitioner”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“That Fadayiro may have been unaware of the new limitations period of Section 2255 also is not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Felder v. Johnson“equitable tolling is proper only when the 'principles of equity would make [the] rigid application [of a limitation period] unfair’”
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.