In Re Avery W. Vial, Movant’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably In Re Ocsulis Dorsainvil, In Re: Byron Jones, A/K/A Carl Lee, A/K/A B, Movant (2000)
6 district · 1 state decisions
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 Murray v. Carrier · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · United States v. Frady · Bailey v. United States · Sanders 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[T]he remedy afforded by § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective merely because an individual has been unable to obtain relief under that provision, or because an individual is procedurally barred from filing a § 2255 motion.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; ... [or] (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
2 later decisions 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.