Brambles v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
330 F.3d 1197 · 2003
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Willie Lee Miles v. Kw Prunty Attorney General of the State of California · Calderon v. United States District Court for the Central District of California · Victor Zarvela v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent · Michael Anthony v. Steven Cambra, Jr., Warden
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On April 11, 2000, Brambles filed, pro se, a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court. On June 28, 2000, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition. Having exhausted his state remedies, Brambles returned to federal court and on July 31, 2000 filed, pro se, his present habeas petition (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brambles v. Duncan“), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 2 Brambles filed an earlier petition that was timely, but it included one exhausted and two unexhausted claims. The district court told Brambles he could either dismiss the unexhausted claims or dismiss the whole petition”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brambles v. Duncan“without prejudice to any right [he] may have to file a new petition once available state remedies are exhausted as to all claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brambles v. Duncan
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.