Mobley v. Head’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[n]either of [the] types of claims [cognizable under section 2244(b)(2) ] challenges the district court’s previous denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Instead, each alleges that the contextual circumstances of the proceeding have changed so much that the petitioner’s conviction or sentence now runs afoul of the Constitution.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Abdur'Rahman v. Bell · Gonzalez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections

2. “Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent restraints on successive habeas petitions. That was true before the [AEDPA] was enacted, and it is equally true, if not more so, under the new act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Lazo v. United States · Rodwell v. Pepe

3. “In all appeals from criminal convictions or post-conviction relief matters from and after July 1, 1967, a litigant shall not be required to petition for rehearing or to file an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee following an adverse decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in order to be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies respecting a claim of error. Rather, when the claim has been presented to the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Supreme Court, and relief has been denied, the litigant shall be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies available for that claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Abdur'Rahman v. Bell