Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 861 F.3d 977 - Hall v. Haws

Hall v. Haws’s Empirical Analysis

861 F.3d 977 · 2017

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
May 2022
most recently cited

1 district ·

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)

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire

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

  1. “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a petitioner whose habeas petition was dismissed without reaching the merits of his claim, while his co-defendant was granted habeas relief on the same claim based on the same error from the same trial”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.”
    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.