Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 465 F.3d 964 - Roy v. Lampert

Roy v. Lampert’s Empirical Analysis

465 F.3d 964 · 2006

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Harris v. Carter (2008), Ramirez v. Yates (2009)

20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

460200620102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Pace v. Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford · Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department · Johnson v. United States · Willie Lee Miles v. Kw Prunty Attorney General of the State of California · Miller v. Marr

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

  1. “(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized , by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.