Taylor v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
164 F.3d 440 · 1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Nguyen (2001), Taylor v. Sawyer (2002)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3585 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Lockhart v. Fretwell · United States v. Wilson · Thomas v. Brewer · United States v. Buchanan
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Pjetitioner construes my statement that “[wjith the imposition of this sentence, the defendant is now in federal custody” to be a pronouncement that petitioner’s federal sentence commenced on May 10, 1993, despite his presence in state custody. However, in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (providing that a federal sentence “commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives ... at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served”), a statement that petitioner’s federal sentence commenced upon its entry is mere surplus-age.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Sawyer · Johnson v. Gill“[d]etermination of priority of custody and service of sentence between state and federal sovereigns is a matter of comity to be resolved by the executive branches of the two sovereigns,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A lack of 'primary jurisdiction' does not mean that a sovereign does not have jurisdiction over a defendant. It simply means that the sovereign lacks priority of jurisdiction for purposes of trial, sentencing and incarceration.”
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.