Clayton v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
700 F.3d 435 · 2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Evitts v. Lucey · Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega · Hilton v. Braunskill · United States v. Morrison
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]ertainly a district court is not confined to only granting an appeal out of time when a petitioner has been denied his right to a direct appeal. It is not unprecedented for a district court to fashion a remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal that goes beyond an appeal out of time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reynolds v. Hepp
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.