Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 318 F.3d 343 - David v. Hall

David v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

318 F.3d 343 · 2003

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 22 district · 3 state decisions

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Duncan v. Walker · Schlup v. Delo · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · McCleskey v. Zant · Herrera v. Collins

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

  1. “could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[D]efendants who may be innocent are constrained by the same explicit statutory or rule-based deadlines as those against whom the evidence is overwhelming ....”), with Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577, 599 (6th Cir.2005) (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.