Brinson v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis
398 F.3d 225 · 2005
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Taylor v. Horn (2007), Williams v. Beard (2011)
17 federal appellate · 6 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Rose v. Lundy · Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.
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.
“we are inclined to believe that where, as here, the relevant facts are not disputed, a District Court's decision on the question whether a case is sufficiently `extraordinary' to justify equitable tolling should be reviewed de novo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Belot v. Burge“and is not employed to upset the strong concern for finality embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Brinson, 398 F.3d at 231. 4 The Supreme Court in Koon also said”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Belot v. Burge
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.