United States v. McDade’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As the Supreme Court has held, attorney error alone in calculating a filing deadline generally does not amount to extraordinary circumstances. See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336 , 127 S.Ct. 1079 , 166 L.Ed.2d 924 (2007). Moreover, the Court observed in Irwin[ v. Department of Veterans Affairs] that courts have “typically extended equitable relief only sparingly.” 498 U.S. [89,] 96 [ 111 S.Ct. 453 , 112 L.Ed.2d 435 ] [ (1990) ]. Still, the Court observed approvingly, courts have “allowed equitable tolling in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period, or ... been induced or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.” M. It cautioned that it has generally “been much less forgiving in receiving late filings where the claimant failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Rice

2. “Guided by Holland v. Florida , interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2244 , we join our sister circuits in holding that equitable tolling applies to § 2255 motions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hicks

3. “Id. at 3. 4 A habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hicks