Martinez v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.3d 637 · 2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · Lovasz v. Vaughn · Anderson v. Litscher · 372 Ill. App. 3d 1056 - People v. DeBerry · 342 Ill. App. 3d 849 - People v. Martinez
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Martinez argues that his § 2254 petition is not untimely because his successive petition for postconviction relief tolled his federal statute of limitations. But we have clearly held that where state ■law requires . pre-filing authorization— such as an application for permission to file a successive petition — simply- taking steps to fulfill this requirement does not toll the statute of limitations. Instead the second petition tolls the limitations period only if the state court grants permission to file it.”
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.