Ray v. Cowley’s Empirical Analysis
975 F.2d 1478 · 1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2107 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Houston v. Lack · Smith v. Barry · McLaughlin v. County of Riverside · Knox v. State of Wyoming
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Moreover, Petitioner submitted the “Application” to prison officials for mailing twenty-four days after the district court filed the order denying his petition; therefore, Petitioner’s ... notice of appeal was timely filed. Ray v. Cowley, 975 F.2d 1478, 1479 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1604 , 123 L.Ed.2d 166 (1993).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rankin v. Roberts“literal reliance on the title of the document [would be] inconsistent with the liberal construction afforded to pro se papers and would permit the district court to arbitrarily deny appellate jurisdiction that is otherwise proper under the rules announced in Smith [v. Barry] and Knox.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the notice afforded by a document, not the litigant's motivation in filing it, determines the document's sufficiency as a notice of appeal.”
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.