Clark v. Cartledge’s Empirical Analysis
829 F.3d 303 · 2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2107 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Bowles v. Russell · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Smith v. Barry · Dale Becker v. Betty Montgomery Attorney General of Ohio · Jones v. Braxton
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“technically at variance with the letter of [Rule 3], a court may nonetheless find that the litigant has complied with the rule if the litigant's action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Cruzado v. Alves“[I]mperfections in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cruzado v. Alves“to require more explicit language from a pro se litigant would turn Smith's instruction that we liberally construe Rule 3's requirements on its head”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cruzado v. Alves
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.