King v. Roe’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.3d 821 · 2003
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Carey Warden v. Saffold · 9 Cal. 4th 464 - People v. Duvall · 34 Cal. 2d 300 - In Re Swain · Jesus Nino v. George Galaza Attorney General of the State of California · Patterson v. Stewart
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, we ask whether the petitioner’s subsequent petitions are limited to an elaboration of the facts relating to the claims in the first petition. If not, these petitions constitute a “new round” and the gap between the rounds is not tolled ... [Second], we ... ask whether [these petitions] were ultimately denied on the merits or deemed untimely ... In the former event, the time gap between the petitions is tolled; in the latter event it is not.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allege with sufficient particularity the facts warranting habeas relief” and”
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.