Williams v. Filson’s Empirical Analysis
908 F.3d 546 · 2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3599 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Townsend v. Sain
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“) sets a one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) ; see also Williams v. Filson , 908 F.3d 546 , 557 (9th Cir. 2018). The limitations period shall run from the latest of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This case involves a statutory tolling claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We have long recognized ... that 'prejudice resulting from ineffective assistance of counsel must be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Panah v. Chappell
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.