Barnickel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 704 · 1997
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably No. 96-2355 (1999), United States v. Barrett (1999)
43 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 3663 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Addonizio · Hughey v. United States · United States v. Keane · Belford 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]oram nobis ... (like habeas corpus) cannot be used to reach issues that could have been raised by direct appeal....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“like a fine-only conviction, ... not a serious restraint on ... liberty as to warrant habeas relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“S 2255 is not available to challenge an order of restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence”
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.