Doe v. Busby’s Empirical Analysis
661 F.3d 1001 · 2011
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante · Neder v. United States
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mlle standard for reasonable diligence does not require an overzealous or extreme pursuit of any and every avenue of relief. It requires the effort that a reasonable person might be expected to deliver under [their] particular circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[l]ike any equitable consideration, whether a prisoner is entitled to equitable tolling under AEDPA will depend on a fact-specific inquiry by the habeas court which may be guided by ‘decisions made in other similar cases’ ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sossa v. Diaz“the question whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled 7 Presumably the trial court had intended to refer to section 56 of FELA. 6 No. 77752-1-1/7 is also reviewed de novo.”
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.