Williamson v. Gregoire’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “History, usage, and precedent can leave no doubt that, besides physical imprisonment, there are other restraints on a man’s liberty, restraints that are not shared by the public generally, which have been thought sufficient in the English-speaking world to support the issuance of habeas corpus.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 359 F. Supp. 2d 948 - Quair v. Sisco · Amado Miranda Esperanza Miranda v. Janet Reno Does 1-100

2. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that ‘habeas corpus is available to an alien seeking entry into the United States, although in those cases each alien was free to go anywhere else in the world.’ ... Similarly, habeas corpus is the proper vehicle to test the legality of once’s induction into military service The Court has explained that a parolee is ‘in custody’ because, ‘[w]hile petitioner’s parole releases him from immediate physical imprisonment, it imposes conditions which significantly confine and restrain his freedom ... ’ The Court added: ‘It is not relevant that conditions and restrictions such as these may be desirable and important parts of the rehabilitative process; what matters is that they significantly restrain petitioner’s liberty to do those things which, in this country free men are entitled to do.’ Also, a convict released on his own recognizance pending execution of his sentence is ‘in custody’ because he was obligated to appear at times and places ordered by the court ... ‘He cannot come and go as he pleases.’ .... We have held that a sentence of 14 hours of attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation program renders someone ‘in custody’ ... We reasoned that, ‘[t]he sentence in this case, requiring appellant’s physical presence at a particular place, significantly restrains appellant’s liberty to do those things which free persons in the United States are entitled to do and therefore must be characterized for jurisdictional purposes, as ‘custody.’ .... Ye”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 359 F. Supp. 2d 948 - Quair v. Sisco

3. “Obviously, if [the petitioner] fails to follow the registration requirements of the Washington law, he could be criminally prosecuted, and the resulting sentence might very well limit his movement, for example, through incarceration. But this potentiality for future incarceration, dependent entirely on whether [the petitioner] chooses to obey the Washington statute, actually makes the sex offender law very similar to the restitution orders thát other courts have found not to create custody.... We do not think that the mere potential for future incarceration, without any present restraint on liberty, can satisfy the “in custody” requirement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hansen v. Marr