Griffin v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
308 F.3d 647 · 2002
Citation profile
20 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Cooey v. Strickland (2007), Vroman v. Brigano (2003)
20 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Duncan v. Walker · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Alabama v. Bozeman · Ganey v. North Carolina · Reno v. Kim Ho Ma
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d)(1) 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 Consti tution 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Griffin then returned to Judge' Hol-schuh, filing on October 15,1999, a habe-as petition under her previous case number. In her re-filing, she alerted the court to the fact that she was filing it “under the original case number,” because it merely continued her previous attack. She also noted that, because her previous filing had been dismissed without prejudice to permit exhaustion, this subsequent filing was not a “second or successive” petition prohibited under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b). J.A. at 102-03. In this petition, Griffin also included notice of the claims that she had brought in her state Application to Reopen. However, on Friday, October 22, Judge Holschuh ordered the clerk to strike Griffin’s new filing under the previous case number and directed the clerk to file it with a new case number and assign it to a judge using the “ordinary selection process.” J.A. at 118 (Dist. Ct. Order 10/22/99). Judge Holschuh noted that because the previous case had closed and the petitioner had offered no grounds to reopen the previous case, the petition should be filed under a different case number, and the district judge to which it would then be assigned should consider independently whether to entertain the petition or reject it as a ■second or successive petition. Judge Holschuh stated that “[t]he assignment or non-assignment of a new civil number to a case is. obviously not conclusive on the issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to file a second habeas corpus petition,” and”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Griffin v. Rogers
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.