DiCenzi v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
419 F.3d 493 · 2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 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 Aron v. United States · Wims v. United States · Searcy v. Carter · Griffin v. Rogers · Abela v. Martin
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Ohio Court of Appeals denied him due process when it denied his motion for delayed appeal.” Id. at 497 . According to DiCenzi, the court of appeals was required to grant his motion for a delayed appeal because the trial court did not inform him of his right to appeal after he was given the maximum possible sentence under Ohio law. Id. at 494 . DiCenzi's habeas claim thus was not purely a case”
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.