Ross v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
896 F.3d 958 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3771 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Erickson v. Pardus · United States v. Vonn · Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden · Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States
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.
“Each separate congeries of facts supporting the grounds for relief, the Rule suggests, would delineate an 'occurrence.' "); see also Ross v. Williams , 896 F.3d 958 , 964 (9th Cir. 2018) ("[F]or purposes of Civil Rule 15(c), an 'occurrence' is an aggregation of facts supporting a discrete claim for relief, and a new claim must arise from the same aggregation of facts set forth in the earlier petition in order to relate back.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Roe
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.