Harper v. Ercole’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.3d 132 · 2011
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Pace v. Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford · Holland v. Florida · Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ourts do not apply [equitable tolling's] requirements mechanistically.... Rather, the exercise of a court's equity powers must be made on a case-by-case basis, mindful that specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To secure equitable tolling, it is not enough for a party to show that he experienced extraordinary circumstances. He must further demonstrate that those circumstances caused him to miss the original filing deadline.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“sever[e] . . . obstacle impeding compliance with a limitations period.”
2 later decisions 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.