Hurth v. Mitchem’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “The purpose and function of the “properly filed” requirement of § 2244(d)(2) is different from that of the procedural bar doctrine. Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 9 , 121 S.Ct. 361, 364 , 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000) (“[T]he question whether an application has been ‘properly filed’ is quite separate from the question whether the claims contained in the application are meritorious and free of procedural bar.”); see also Estes v. Chapman, 382 F.3d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir.2004) (discussing Artuz); Wade v. Battle, 379 F.3d 1254, 1259-60 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Artuz).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 880 F. Supp. 2d 1162 - Kuenzel v. Allen

2. “Whether the district court erred in dismissing the claims in appellant's federal habeas corpus petition ... as procedurally defaulted when it is arguable among jurists of reason that the state's rationale for failing to reach the merits of appellant's claims was not consistently applied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Siebert v. Allen

3. “jurisdictional criterion from [ Siebert I ]'s holding”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Siebert v. Allen