Crutsinger v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
929 F.3d 259 · 2019
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3599 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Ackermann v. United States · Gonzalez v. Crosby · Klapprott 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“risk[ed] ... undermining the public's confidence in the judicial process by allowing an erroneous decision, the denial of funding based on procedural bar, to dictate the outcome of every decision that follows rather than just requiring the proper consideration of the motion for funding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crutsinger v. Davis“[t]he risk of injustice to Crutsinger in not reopening the judgment and properly deciding his funding motion is great, while the risk of injustice to the government is nonexistent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crutsinger v. Davis“not every interpretation of the federal statutes setting forth the requirements for habeas provides cause for reopening cases long since final.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crutsinger 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.