Dutil v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
550 F.3d 154 · 2008
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2024
3 federal appellate · 14 district ·
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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · United States v. Salerno · Kansas v. Hendricks · Duncan v. Henry · Baldwin v. Reese
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e hold pro se pleadings to less demanding standards than those drafted by lawyers and endeavor, within reasonable limits, to guard against the loss of pro se claims due to technical defects.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Frese v. Formella“as a general rule, we are solicitous of the obstacles that pro se litigants face,”
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.