Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 384 F.3d 69 - Schlueter III v. Varner

Schlueter III v. Varner’s Empirical Analysis

384 F.3d 69 · 2004

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 36 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Wilson v. Beard (2005), Lacava v. Kyler (2005)

21 federal appellate · 36 district · 2 state decisions

570200420102020decided

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

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Link v. Wabash Railroad · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · United States v. Boyle · Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega

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

  1. “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not require `the maximum feasible diligence,' ... it does require reasonable diligence in the circumstances.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(d)(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; [or] (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
    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.