Singleton v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis
319 F.3d 1018 · 2003
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Estelle v. Gamble · Rose v. Lundy · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Moran v. Burbine
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although Crouch's proposed petition neither relies on a new rule of constitutional law nor identifies newly-discovered facts that establish his innocence of the underlying sex offenses, Crouch may nevertheless be free to file his proposed petition in the district court if it is not `second or successive.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[Section] 2254 is the only means by which ‘a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court’ may raise challenges to the validity of his conviction or sentence or to the execution of his sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2244's strict procedural regime and substantive standards only apply if Benchoff's current petition is `second or successive' within the meaning of the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.