Uranga v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “15 In this matter, Uranga submitted Simmonds' declaration to the district court in which Simmonds gave a detailed account of why it was necessary for him to sign Uranga's Rule 59(e) motion and his relationship with Uranga. Specifically, Simmonds explained that he and Uranga were unable to meet due to a lockdown situation at the prison so in light of the impending deadline for filing a Rule 59(e) motion, Simmonds signed Uranga's name to the Rule 59(e) motion. We find that these facts constitute an adequate explanation of the necessity for resorting to the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Uranga v. Davis

2. “) and would not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. 5 In Gonzalez v. Crosby , the Supreme Court instructed that a postjudgment motion should be treated as a successive § 2254 application if the motion adds a new ground for relief or attacks the district court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits. 6 Conversely, we should not treat a postjudgment motion as a successive § 2254 application when the motion”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Uranga v. Davis

3. “). 17 Houston , 487 U.S. at 275 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 . 18 See Hernandez v. Spearman , 764 F.3d 1071 , 1074 (9th Cir. 2014). The respondent argues that Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases restricts application of the prison mailbox rule to filings made personally by the inmate-petitioner. Rule 3(d) provides:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Uranga v. Davis