Neverson v. Farquharson’s Empirical Analysis
366 F.3d 32 · 2004
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 29 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Holland v. Florida (2010), Holland v. Florida (2010)
35 federal appellate · 29 district · 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Estelle v. McGuire · Rose v. Lundy · Duncan v. Walker · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]quitable tolling, if available at all, is the exception rather than the rule; resort to its prophylaxis is deemed justified only in extraordinary circumstances,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“deadlines that define the court's jurisdiction may not be equitably tolled.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[A]t a minimum, equitable tolling is appropriate only when circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control have prevented him from filing on time. In the habeas context particularly, care is required to avoid upsetting the strong concern for finality embodied in § 2254.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.