Lonchar v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.3d 590 · 1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Sanders v. United States · McCleskey v. Zant · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Weichert v. United States · Wiston XXIV Ltd. Partnership v. Balcor Pension Investors V.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if we were to assume, however, that Harris could avoid the application of McCleskey to bar his claim, we would not consider it on the merits. Whether his claim is framed as a habeas petition or as a [42 U. S. C.] Section(s) 1983 action, Harris seeks an equitable remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lonchar v. Thomas“[a] court may consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lonchar v. Thomas“last-minute attempts to manipulate the judicial process,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lonchar v. Thomas
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.