Mayberry v. Dittmann’s Empirical Analysis
904 F.3d 525 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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 Pace v. Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford · Lawrence v. Florida · Holland v. Florida · Holland v. Florida · Miller v. Runyon
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]lthough [the petitioner's] mental limitations undoubtedly made filing a petition for habeas corpus difficult, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that he failed to show how those difficulties affected him during the relevant time period to such an extent that he qualifies for the extraordinary remedy of equitable tolling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conroy v. Thompson“only if the illness in fact prevents the sufferer from managing his affairs and thus from understanding his legal rights and acting upon them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conroy v. Thompson“actually impaired his ability to pursue his claims”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conroy v. Thompson
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.