Pugh v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.3d 1295 · 2006
Citation profile
14 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brown v. Texas · Clay v. United States · Tannenbaum v. United States · Cheffer v. Reno · Drew v. Department of Corrections
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]inal judgment[ ] or decree[ ] rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the absence of a clear statutory or constitutional bar to higher state court review, the Supreme Court requires petitioners to seek review in the state's highest court before filing a petition for certiorari.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are also satisfied that there is no basis for concluding that Drew should have received an evidentiary hearing on his equitable tolling claim .... Even if Drew could somehow prove that he did not receive the district court order (and for these purposes we assume this to be so), he has offered no reason to believe that an evidentiary hearing would help him prove that he acted diligently in trying to obtain it. In fact, as discussed already, the same document that would support the claim that he did not receive the order would almost certainly defeat any claim that he sent repeated letters to the Clerk of the Court. Simply put, an evidentiary hearing would be of no value to Drew even if he could show that he did not receive the district court order. In light of the wholly conclusory nature of Drew’s recently-presented allegations and in the absence of supporting evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to hold a hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. San Martin v. McNeil
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.