Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 F.3d 1018 - Siebert v. Campbell

Siebert v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

334 F.3d 1018 · 2003

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
March 2017
most recently cited

21 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Edwards Warden v. Carpenter · Ford v. Georgia · Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett

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

  1. “(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The aims of comity and federalism that animate both AEDPA and the doctrine of procedural default favor deference toward state procedural rules only when their consistent application demonstrates the state’s real reliance on them as a means to the orderly administration of justice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “a rule governing filings must be `firmly established and regularly followed' before noncompliance will render a petition improperly filed for the purposes of AEDPA's tolling provision,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.