Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 343 F.3d 1077 - Redd v. McGrath

Redd v. McGrath’s Empirical Analysis

343 F.3d 1077 · 2003

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
June 2016
most recently cited

14 federal appellate ·

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 William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel · Reiter v. Cooper · Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of California, Inc. · 11 Cal. 3d 258 - In Re Sturm · Jesus Nino v. George Galaza Attorney General of the State of California

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

  1. “(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; (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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In California, the state supreme court, intermediate courts of appeal and superior courts all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. ... If the court of appeal denies [habeas] relief, the petitioner may seek review in the California Supreme Court by way of a petition for review, or may instead file an original habeas petition in the supreme court.”
    2 later decisions 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.