Hunt v. Pliler’s Empirical Analysis
336 F.3d 839 · 2003
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
September 2004
most recently cited
3 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · United States v. Raddatz · 5 Cal. 4th 750 - In Re Clark · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n light of the filing of an objection to the magistrate's `Recommendation and Order ...' Petitioner will have 30 days from notice of this Court's ruling on the Objection in which to file a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunt v. Pliler“Petitioner risks forfeiture of the unexhausted claims ... if he elects to file a Second Amended Petition containing only exhausted claims and later attempts to file a second federal habeas action after exhausting his state remedies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunt v. Pliler“having reviewed Petitioner's Objections, the magistrate judge's September 14, 2000, Minute Order, and the two Applications filed by Petitioner on September 8, 2000, the Court finds that Petitioner's arguments are not persuasive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunt v. Pliler
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.