Eriline Company Sa’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Rennie v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (2015), Sheikh v. Republic of the Sudan (2016)
9 district ·
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
Relies on Link v. Wabash Railroad · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · United States v. Cotton · Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain · United States v. Burke
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, a habeas petitioner is not likely to plead detailed facts to refute this defense in the initial § 2254 petition.... Any facts relating to [statutory or equitable tolling] are [therefore] unlikely to be part of the record.... Thus, when a federal habeas court, acting sua sponte, dismisses a § 2254 action as untimely without notice to or input from the petitioner, the court cannot be certain that there are no circumstances that would cause the petition to be timely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). See also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648 , 653 n. 7 (4th Cir.2006) (finding single, conclusory sentence in brief”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.