82 F. Supp. 2d 160 - Rhodes v. Senkowski’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Thomas v. Arn · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Lindh v. Murphy · Houston v. Lack · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, the Court assumes that [habeas corpus petitioner] gave his petition to prison officials for mailing on the date he signed it, February 9, 1998. See, e.g., Torres v. Irvin, 33 F.Supp.2d [257,] 270 [(S.D.N.Y. 1998)]; Hunter v. Kuhlman, [No. 97 Civ. 4692], [ 1998 WL 182441 ] (S.D.N.Y. April 17, 1998) [mem.] (deeming petition filed on date on which petitioner signed it); Hughes v. Irvin, 967 F.Supp. 775, 778 (E.D.N.Y.1997); Jones v. Artuz, TNo. 97 Civ. 23941, [ 1997 WL 876735 ] (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 1997) [mem.].”
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.