Byrd v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
119 F.3d 34 · 1997
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 24 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Williams v. Martinez (2009), United States of America, v. Dennis L. Mitchell, (2000)
3 federal appellate · 24 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
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Lane · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc. · Swain v. Pressley
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 31 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 by ... any Federal ... court if it appears ... that the Superior 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.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if it appears that the applicant has failed to make a motion for relief under this section . . . unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a [D.C.] prisoner seeking to collaterally attack his sentence must do so by motion in the sentencing court-the Snperior Conrt-pursuant to D.C.Code § 23-110.”
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.