No. 96-2355’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 district ·

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

1. “‘An application for a writ of habeas corpus [under § 2241] in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to [§ 2255], shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 F. Supp. 3d 125 - McKubbin v. Grondolsky · 308 F. Supp. 3d 562 - Cunningham v. Grondolsky

2. “(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; 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
   e.g. Norton v. United States · 445 F. Supp. 2d 199 - Parrilla-Tirado v. United States

3. “'a prisoner a reasonable opportunity to obtain a reliable judicial determination of the fundamental legality of his conviction and sentence.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henderson v. Grondolsky · Smith v. Grondolsky