Porter v. Ollison’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.3d 952 · 2010
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Erickson v. Pardus · Pace v. Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford · Gonzalez v. Crosby · Carey Warden v. Saffold · Holland v. Florida
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; ... or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mardesich v. Cate“any state court dockets or pleadings that have been located (including on the Internet) and for which it is proper to take judicial notice”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paez v. Sec'y
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.