Woodfolk v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
857 F.3d 531 · 2017
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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 North Carolina v. Alford · Coleman v. Thompson · Teague v. Lane · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Spencer v. Kemna
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the district court erred in denying Woodfolk's [ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ] petition as untimely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell v. Green“the last reasoned decision of a state court addressing the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lawlor v. Zook“tolled the limitations period under Kholi .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Green
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.