Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 319 F.3d 690 - Roberts v. Cockrell

Roberts v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis

319 F.3d 690 · 2003

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
October 2024
most recently cited

35 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Henderson v. Cockrell (2003), Hernandez v. Thaler (2011)

35 federal appellate ·

480200320102020decided

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

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 Teague v. Lane · Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · Caspari Superintendent Missouri Eastern Correctional Center et al Bohlen · Davis v. Johnson · Flanagan v. Johnson

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. “by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A). When, as here, the defendant ceases the appeals process before reaching the state court of last resort, "the conviction becomes final when the time for seeking further direct review in the state court expires.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “find no reason to look to state law to determine when a state conviction becomes final for the purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A).” Id. at 694 . The state's argument ignores the fact that the court in Roberts was asked only to determine when federal law considers an action to have been taken, not whether a state proceeding is part of the state's”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review” still might not change from July 25, 1998. Unlike an analysis under the tolling provision of the statute, which relies on the forum state’s interpretation of when a petition is”
    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.