Douglas v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.3d 43 · 1993
Citation profile
25 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Triestman v. United States (1997), Rosario v. United States (1998)
25 federal appellate ·
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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Frady · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Andrijevic v. Kelleran · Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. · Billy-Eko 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party who fails to raise an issue on direct appeal and subsequently endeavors to litigate the issue via a § 2255 petition must 'show that there was cause for failing to raise the issue, and prejudice resulting therefrom.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'section 2255 may not be employed to relitigate questions which were raised and considered on direct appeal,'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a movant cannot raise as a basis for vacating [his] sentence a ground raised in a previous § 2255 motion that was decided on the merits.”
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.