Doe v. Menefee’s Empirical Analysis
391 F.3d 147 · 2004
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Souter v. Jones (2005), Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant # 1 (2008)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Murray v. Carrier · Schlup v. Delo · Bousley v. United States
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he court must consider how reasonable jurors, fairly examining all of the evidence presented, would assess the petitioner’s guilt or innocence. In evaluating the record as a whole, the habeas court may make its own credibility determinations as to both the new evidence and the evidence already in the record that may be thrown into doubt by the new material. With respect to the ultimate issue of innocence, however, Schlup does not permit the court to make an independent judgment of whether reasonable doubt exists, but instead requires a probabilistic determination about what reasonable, properly instructed jurors would do. This probabilistic analysis must determine not merely whether a reasonable doubt ex ists in the light of the new evidence, but rather whether it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found the defendant guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court’s factual findings may be clearly erroneous where the court failed to synthesize the evidence in a manner that accounts for conflicting evidence or the gaps in a party’s evidentiary presentation; incorrectly assessed the probative value of various pieces of evidence; or failed to weigh all of the relevant evidence before making its factual findings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period he seeks to toll.”
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.