Causey v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'AEDPA, not state law, determines when a judgment is final for federal habeas purposes.’ ” (quoting Foreman v. Dretke, 383 F.3d 336 , 339 (5th Cir.2004))); Roberts, 319 F.3d at 694 (”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Hubert · Scott v. Hubert

2. “Coleman does not require that we ignore the abundance of Louisiana case law following the prison mailbox rule. Although its reasoning is less than clear, Coleman is best understood as an interpretation of Texas law____This circuit, like most, holds that a properly filed state application for collateral review is one submitted according to the state’s procedural requirements. At the time this Court decided Coleman, Texas law was unclear on, and arguably averse to, the prison mailbox rule. Implicit in Coleman’s decision not to extend the mailbox rule to ... state habeas applications is the principle that state courts have the right to interpret state rules of filing and are not bound by Houston’s construction of federal filing rules.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richards v. Thaler

3. “date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review” still might not change from July 25, 1998. Unlike an analysis under the tolling provision of the statute, which relies on the forum state’s interpretation of when a petition is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Butler v. Cain