In Re: Audwin Hawatha Taylor, Movant’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017
3 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 Bailey v. United States · Kuhlmann v. Wilson · United States v. Texas · In Re Avery W. Vial, Movant · Miller v. Bordenkircher
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) newly discovered evidence ...; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The AEDPA amendments to § 2255 do not define the phrase “second or successive.” However, Congress did “not write upon a clean slate” when it enacted the AEDPA. United States v. Texas, 507 U.S. 529, 534 , 113 S.Ct. 1631 , 123 L.Ed.2d 245 (1993). The preexisting version of § 2255 also imposed limitations upon a prisoner’s right to bring “a second or successive motion for similar relief,” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994), and we have previously recognized that the AEDPA “codif[ied] and extended] judicially constructed limits on the consideration of second and successive applications for collateral relief.” In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir.1997) (en banc). Prior to the enactment of AEDPA, a “successive petition” for collateral relief was one which raised “grounds identical to those raised and rejected on the merits on a prior petition,” and a “petition raising grounds that were available but not relied upon in a prior petition” could be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner “ha[d] abused the writ.” Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 444 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. 2616 , 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986) (emphasis added); accord Miller v. Bordenkircher, 764 F.2d 245, 248-49 (4th Cir.1985). Thus, under pre-AED-PA law, a claim which did not arise until after a prior petition was filed would not be barred as “second or successive” or by the “abuse of the writ” doctrine.”
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.