Davis v. Humphreys’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.3d 497 · 2014
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 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 United States v. Kubrick · Atkins v. Virginia · Godinez v. Moran · Holland v. Florida · Young 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]risoners' shortcomings of knowledge about the AEDPA or the law of criminal procedure in general do not support tolling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conroy v. Thompson
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.