Yang v. Archuleta’s Empirical Analysis
525 F.3d 925 · 2008
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Pace v. Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford · Wallace v. Kato
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we liberally construe pro se filings, we do not assume the role of advocate.” Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 , 927 n. 1 (10th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted). 2 . Although Howell contends on appeal that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, equitable tolling requires a litigant to establish two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n inmate bears a strong burden to show specific facts to support his claim of extraordinary circumstances and due diligence.”
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.