In Re: Calvin Warren’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
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 Murray v. Carrier · Schlup v. Delo · Bousley v. United States · House v. Bell · 133 S. Ct. 1924 - McQuiggin v. Perkins
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“new” within the meaning of Schlup. See In re Warren, 537 Fed.Appx. 457 , 460 n. 2, 2013 WL 3870423 , at n. 2 (5th Cir. July 29, 2013) (Dennis, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Wright v. Quarterman, 470 F.3d 581 (5th Cir.2006)) (noting circuit split “as to whether, under Schlup, the evidence was not discoverable at the time of trial or whether it is sufficient that the evidence be newly presented,” and declining to resolve issue). But see Moore v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 454 , 465 (5th Cir.2008) (describing evidence as not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Reed v. Stephens
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.