Nara v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.3d 187 · 2007
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Brightwell v. Lehman (2011), Thomas v. Horn (2009)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 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. § 636
Relies on United States v. Olano · Coleman v. Thompson · Thomas v. Arn · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Carnegie v. United States
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the danger of prejudice to the other party; 2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; 3) the reason for the delay — and whether it was within the movant’s control; and 4) whether the movant acted in good faith.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Baldwin held that, “ordinarily a state prisoner does not fairly present a claim to a state court if that court must look beyond a petition or a brief (or similar document)- that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to find material, such as a lower court opinion, that does so.” Baldwin, 541 U.S. 27, 32 , 124 S.Ct. 1347 , 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004). Baldwin concluded that the petitioner’s briefs to the state courts in that case did not “fairly present” a federal claim because the briefs cited no case that might alert the state court to the federal nature of the claim, lacked a factual description supporting the claim, and yet cited federal law in support of other claims. Id. at 33 , 124 S.Ct. 1347 . These are among the same considerations set out in McCandless .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“of a lack of information and misfiling” — are belied by the record. See Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 193-94 (3d Cir.2007) (“The test for 'excusable neglect' is equitable, and requires us to weigh the ‘totality of the circumstances.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.