In re Davila’s Empirical Analysis
888 F.3d 179 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Sawyer v. Whitley · Reyes-Requena v. United States · Nobles v. Johnson · UPMC v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc.
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.
“[T]his means the date a petitioner is on notice of the facts which would support a claim, not the date on which the petitioner has in his possession evidence to support his claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Osborne v. Hall“the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Osborne v. Hall“no reasonable factfinder would have found her guilty”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blackman v. Davis
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.