Manco v. Werholtz’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.3d 760 · 2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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)
Relies on Bowles v. Russell · Smith v. Barry · Price v. Philpot · Hatfield v. Board of County Commissioners
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a document filed within the time period specified in Fed. R.App. P. 4 provides the information required by Fed. R.App. P. 3, it may serve as a notice of appeal. To satisfy Rule 3, the document must specify the party making the appeal, the judgment or order from which the party appeals, and the court to which the appeal is taken.”
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.