Hardy v. Quarterman’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.3d 596 · 2009
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2024
9 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Fisher v. Johnson · United States of America v. Norma Burgos-Andjar · Stupakoff v. Otto (GmbH & Co. KG) · Felder v. Johnson · Ott v. Johnson
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A district court’s refusal to invoke equitable tolling is reviewed for abuse of discretion, [citation] The one-year federal limitations period is subject to equitable tolling only ‘in rare and exception circumstances.’ [citations] ‘A petitioner’s failure to satisfy the statute of limitations must result from external factors beyond his control; delays of the petitioner’s own making do not qualify.’ [citation] ‘ “[E]quity is not intended for those who sleep on their rights.” ’ ” [citation] The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that equitable tolling is warranted. Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508 , 511 (5th Cir.), modified on reh’g, 223 F.3d 797 (5th Cir.2000). The TCCA is (and was at all times material hereto) legally obligated to notify a petitioner once a decision has been rendered on his habeas petition. See Tex.R.App. P. 77.4(a). Long delays in receiving notice of state court action may warrant equitable tolling. To warrant tolling under such circumstances, a petitioner must show that he “pursued the [habeas corpus relief] process with diligence and alacrity’ both before and after receiving notification.” (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stroman v. Thaler“acted with 'diligence and alacrity' in pursuing his federal habeas rights given 'his prisoner and pro se status and the fact that the TCCA had the legal duty to notify him' that his state application had been denied”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Davis“A petitioner's failure to satisfy the statute of limitations must result from external factors beyond his control; delays of the petitioner's own making do not qualify.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Davis
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.