Cobas v. Burgess’s Empirical Analysis
306 F.3d 441 · 2002
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
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)
Relies on McCleskey v. Zant · Don Vicente Macias, Inc. v. Texas Gulf Trawling Co. · Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe · Dunlap v. United States · Andrews v. Orr
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an inmate's lack of legal training, his poor education, [and] even his illiteracy does not give a court reason to toll the statute of limitations.” Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir.2002) (citations omitted); see also Williams v. Price, 2002 WL 551037 , at (E.D.Mich. Mar. 29, 2002) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fitts v. Eberlin · Mendoza v. Carey“We hold that where a petitioner's alleged lack of proficiency in English has not prevented the petitioner from accessing the courts, that lack of proficiency is insufficient to justify an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mendoza v. Carey“Courts that have considered the issue have rejected the claim that an inability to understand English provides a reason for a court to toll the § 2244(d)(1) statute of limitations.”
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.