Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 F.3d 676 - Reyes v. Keane

Reyes v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis

90 F.3d 676 · 1996

Citation profile

167
cited by 167 later decisions
5
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Drinkard v. Johnson (1996), United States v. Simmonds (1997)

63 federal appellate · 14 district · 5 state decisions

1400199620002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Murray v. Carrier · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Russello v. United States · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond

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

  1. “whether a state prisoner who files his ha-beas petition more than a year after state court direct review was completed but within a year after the effective date of the AEDPA will be allowed a full year from the effective date of the Act or only a reasonable time thereafter.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[a] certificate of appealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “First, the [Act] was aimed primarily at prisoners’ suits challenging prison conditions, many of which are routinely dismissed as frivolous. There is nothing in the text of the [Act] or its legislative history to indicate that Congress expected its filing fee payment requirements to apply to habeas corpus petitions. Second, we note that Congress has endeavored to make the filing of a habeas corpus petition easier than the filing of a typical civil action by setting the district court filing fee at $5, compared to the $120 applicable to civil complaints.... Third, Congress gave specific attention to perceived abuses in the filing of habeas corpus petitions by enacting Title I of the AEDPA. That title imposes several new restrictions on habeas corpus petitions, but makes ño change in fifing fees or in a prisoner’s obligation for payment of existing fees.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.