Orange v. Calbone’s Empirical Analysis
318 F.3d 1167 · 2003
Citation profile
12 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 Williams v. Taylor · Haines v. Kerner · Carey Warden v. Saffold · Ronnie Lee Gibson v. Ken Klinger - · D'Juan Bronaugh v. State of Ohio
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n determining whether a particular state procedure constitutes part of the `direct review' process for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A), a federal court must defer to underlying state court characterization of the procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Summers v. Schriro“review[ed] the issues raised. . . on the merits without the typical res judicata/procedural bar analysis normally employed in a case involving post-conviction review”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Frasch v. Peguese“the date on which the judgment [of conviction in state court] became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Frasch v. Peguese
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.