Modrowski v. Mote’s Empirical Analysis
322 F.3d 965 · 2003
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Fleming v. Evans (2007), United States v. Martin (2005)
29 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Harris v. Hutchinson · Seitzinger v. Reading Hospital & Medical Center · United States of America v. James Marcello Anthony Zizzo · Frederick Steed v. Frederick Head Warden · Taliani v. Chrans
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“attorney incapacity is equivalent to attorney negligence for equitable tolling purposes. We will not revisit our *Page 28 long-standing determination that petitioners bear ultimate responsibility for their filings, even if that means preparing duplicative petitions: petitioners, `whether in prison or not, must vigilantly oversee the actions of their attorneys and, if necessary, take matters into their own hands'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[e]ven if a prisoner diligently checks an attorney's references and disciplinary records, he still cannot prevent the attorney from bungling his case. Nonetheless, we hold the prisoner responsible for his attorney’s bungling.” Modrowsld v. Mote, 322 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.2003). . See, e.g., Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d at 358 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Equitable tolling excuses an untimely filing when “[e]xtraordinary circumstances far beyond the litigant’s control. . .prevented timely filing.” [United States v.] Marcello, 212 F.3d [1005,] 1010 [ (7th Cir.2000) ]. We rarely deem equitable tolling appropriate — in fact, we have yet to identify a circumstance that justifies equitable tolling in the collateral relief context. See, e.g., Lloyd [v. Van Natta], 296 F.3d [630,] 633 [(7th Cir.2002) ](prisoner’s lack of access to trial transcript does not warrant equitable tolling); Montenegro v. United States, 248 F.3d 585, 594 (7th Cir.2001) (equitable tolling not justified by lack of response from attorney, language barrier, lack of legal knowledge, and transfer between prisons), overruled on other grounds by Ashley v. United States, 266 F.3d 671 (7th Cir.2001); Marcello, 212 F.3d at 1010 (equitable tolling not warranted by unclear law and death of attorney’s father); see also Brooks v. Walls, 279 F.3d 518, 525 (7th Cir.2002)(noting that little room remains for tolling unless the petitioner falls within one of the statutorily provided circumstances for tolling in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)). But cf. Johnson v. McCaughtry, 265 F.3d 559, 567-68 (7th Cir.2001) (Evans, J., dissenting) (equitable tolling justified by petition filed mistakenly in wrong forum by prisoner’s attorney).”
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.