Norris v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.3d 401 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
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 Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Agostini v. Felton Chancellor Board of Education of the City of New York
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]ntervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“) (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 , 532 n.4, 125 S.Ct. 2641 , 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) ) (internal brackets omitted). 7”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 , 535, 125 S.Ct. 2641 , 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005), and”
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.