Hernandez v. Thaler’s Empirical Analysis
630 F.3d 420 · 2011
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Adams v. Thaler (2012), Cox v. Horn (2014)
12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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. § 2107 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Fay v. Noia · Bowles v. Russell · Woodford v. Ngo
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is the substance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading, not the label that the petitioner has attached to it, that determines the true nature and operative effect of a habeas filing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We ... hold that Dunn's conclusion that a COA is not required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion applies only when the purpose of the motion is to reinstate appellate jurisdiction over the original denial of habeas relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crutsinger v. Davis“[W]e have frequently instructed district courts to determine the true nature of a pleading by its substance, not its label.”
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.