Holbrook v. Curtin’s Empirical Analysis
833 F.3d 612 · 2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2101 · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden · Carey Warden v. Saffold · Clay v. United States · Lawrence v. Florida · Gonzalez v. Thaler
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction ... review ... is pending.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ray v. Bauman“achieved final resolution through the State's post-conviction procedures”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ray v. Bauman
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.