Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 496 F.3d 1133 - Dulworth v. Jones

Dulworth v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

496 F.3d 1133 · 2007

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
March 2018
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Buckhannon Board and Care Home Incs v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources · Barefoot v. Estelle · Gonzalez v. Crosby

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

  1. “[w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Congress imposed the COA requirement to screen out appeals that do not raise substantial constitutional questions, thereby conserving appellate judicial resources for use only in substantial cases. Given the focus on uncovering possible constitutional error at the appellate level, it makes no sense to squander those resources by circumventing that screening process for some final orders in ha-beas cases. Consequently, in our judgment all appeals from final orders in habeas cases, of whatever type, should be required to meet the COA standard to proceed.”
    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.