In Re: Edward O'Neal Bowen, Movant-Petitioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Had Austin not been the law, [the petitioner] would have been required either to exhaust all of his claims before filing his first habeas petition in order to bring all his exhausted claims at once, or submit all his claims within one year of direct appeal, understanding that his unexhausted [ ] claim would result in the dismissal of his petition as mixed. However, given the state of the law in this circuit when [the petitioner]’s petition was considered, [the petitioner] was unable to pursue either avenue. Under Austin , he risked losing federal review of his exhausted claims due to AEDPA’s statute of limitation if he took either approach. Given Austin , if the district court had dismissed his mixed petition, the AEDPA statute of limitation would have tolled on his exhausted claims, potentially foreclosing review of those claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bowling v. Haeberline

2. “Because Austin implied that state post-conviction proceedings on [a petitioner’s unexhausted] claims would not toll AEDPA’s statute of limitation as it applied to his already exhausted claims, [the petitioner] had no recourse but to file his exhausted claims for federal habeas review before exhausting his remaining claims, as it had been nearly one year since he had exhausted his state remedies with regard to those claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bowling v. Haeberline