Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 840 F.3d 867 - Carpenter v. Douma

Carpenter v. Douma’s Empirical Analysis

840 F.3d 867 · 2016

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Lawrence v. Florida · Holland v. Florida · Holland v. Florida · United States of America v. James Marcello Anthony Zizzo · Miller v. Runyon

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘The diligence required for equitable tolling purposes is reasonable diligence .,. not maximum feasible diligence.’ Holland [v. Florida], 560 U.S. [631] at 653, 130 S.Ct. 2549 [(2016)] (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) .... “The Supreme Court in Holland found that a habeas petitioner had exercised reasonable diligence by writing his attorney ‘numerous letters seeking crucial information and providing direction’; ‘repeatedly contacting]-the state courts, their clerks, and the Florida State Bar Association’; and preparing ‘his own habeas petition pro. se and promptly fil[ing] it with the District Court’ on the day he discovered that his AEDPA [An-titerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996] clock had expired. Id. In Socha [v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014)], we similarly held that a habeas petitioner had exercised'reasonable diligence by repeatedly writing his attorney requesting access to his file, pleading with the public defender’s office for help, and alerting the court ‘before the deadline arrived’ that he sought to preserve his rights. 763 F.3d at 687-88 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to justify an evidentiary hearing). Because we agree with the district court that Mayberry has failed to establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances, it is unnecessary to address his arguments regarding the first element-whether he diligently pursued his rights throughout the AEDPA period. Because the district court addressed this element, however, we too briefly consider it for completeness. Although the diligence required for equitable tolling is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way' and prevented timely filing.”
    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.