Dixon v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis
316 F.3d 553 · 2003
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
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 Carey Warden v. Saffold · Michael Melancon v. Baron Kaylo · 620 So. 2d 904 - State v. Dixon · 822 So. 2d 188 - Causey v. Caterpillar MacHinery Corp.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here [was] nothing [in the record or briefs] to indicate ... that the prisoner there ever, or ever during the thirty days next following the trial court’s December 9, 1997, denial of relief, sought any extension ... of the thirty day period provided in Rule 1-3 or filed any notice of intent to seek writs and/or any motion and order requesting a return date. Thus, in Melancon when the thirty days expired there was neither any order extending or fixing the return date to or at a time later than the thirty day period nor was there pending any undisposed of motion for any such relief, and no supervisory writ application had been filed. Thus Melancon’s writ application ceased to be pending at the expiration of the thirty days.”
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.