O'Connor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.3d 548 · 1998
Citation profile
47 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Ross v. Artuz (1998), United States of America v. James Marcello Anthony Zizzo (2000)
47 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
Relies on Lindh v. Murphy · Lindh v. Murphy · Nuñez v. United States · United States v. Davis · Young 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The idea behind § 2255 p8 [the successive motion provision] is that a prisoner is entitled to one, but only one, full and fair opportunity to wage a collateral attack.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any other course fractures the case into slivers, jeopardizes the defendant's opportunity for one complete collateral attack, or both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“one motion is on appeal when the second reaches the district court.”
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.