Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 968 F.2d 298 - Frank v. Johnson

Frank v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

968 F.2d 298 · 1992

Citation profile

332
cited by 332 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 28 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 332 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann (1993), Roldan v. Racette (1993)

14 federal appellate · 28 district ·

1890199220002010decided

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 Thomas v. Arn · Small v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Wesolek ex rel. Estate of Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd. · Moore v. United States · McCarthy v. Manson

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

  1. “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses: (1) a narcotic drug with intent to sell it....” 2 . Because the Court recommends that Robinson’s petition be dismissed on the merits, the Court need not address the effect, if any, of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214), on non-capital case habeas corpus petitions, such as Robinson's, filed and pending before the Act's April 24, 1996 enactment. A Second Circuit panel has decided that the Antiterrorism Act "does not apply retroactively to habeas corpus petitions not involving death sentences filed prior to the statute’s enactment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A party must serve and file any objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations within ten days after being served with the report.... [F]ailure to object timely to a report waives any further judicial review of the report.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “explicitly states that failure to object to the report within ten (10) days will preclude appellate review and specifically cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and rules 72, 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.