Townsend v. Knowles’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 1200 · 2009
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 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 Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Coleman v. Thompson · Estelle v. McGuire · Richardson v. Marsh
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• On May 25,1999, before the conviction was final, Nedds filed identical state habeas petitions in Superior Court, and the California Court of Appeal. • On or about May 27, 1999, Nedds was transferred from Ironwood State Prison to Tehachapi State Prison (“Tehachapi”). • The Superior Court denied Nedds’ habeas petition on June 25,1999, and the California Court of Appeal denied the petition on July 14,1999. • On December 22, 1999 — 160 days later — Nedds filed another state habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal. The petition was denied on January 26, 2000. • On April 5, 2000 — 70 days later— Nedds filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. The petition was denied on September 27, 2000. • On September 10, 2001 1 — 348 days later — Nedds filed a habeas petition in federal district court. All of the petitions (both state and federal) were filed pro se. • On August 11, 2008, the district court dismissed Nedds’ federal habeas petition as untimely for failing to meet AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations, which, absent any form of tolling, expired on June 22, 2000.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nedds v. Calderon“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — [¶] (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or [¶] (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
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.