Egerton v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis
334 F.3d 433 · 2003
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Shannon v. Newland (2005), Salinas v. Dretke (2004)
15 federal appellate · 1 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.
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 Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Bounds v. Smith · Davis v. Johnson · Anthony Lewis Whalem/hunt v. Rchard Early, Warden · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to invoke § 2244(d)(1)(B), the prisoner must show that: (1) he was prevented from filing a petition (2) by State action (3) in violation of the Constitution or federal law.” Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 436 (5th Cir.2003). However, as discussed above, that petitioner did not possess every legal document he desired does not constitute an”
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.