Meyers v. Welch’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.2d 707 · 1950
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1997 · most notably United States v. Hayman (1952), Triestman v. United States (1997)
54 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Sunal v. Large · Nye v. United States · Sunal v. Large · John McNamara v. William Henkel · Christoffel 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Appellant was imprisoned for the service of his sentence in the Eastern District of Virginia; and, after the denial of the motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 by the trial court, he filed in the District Court of that District the application for writ of habeas corpus from denial of which this appeal is taken. We think that the application was properly denied. In the first place, the prisoner has no right to relief by habeas corpus where there exists the right to relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 ; and the fact that the motion has been denied does not give the right to resort to habeas corpus, even if the movant is entitled to relief, since the remedy in such case is by appeal. Only where the remedy by motion with appeal therefrom is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention may there be resort to habeas corpus."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it appearing from an examination of said petition and the answer of Respondent thereto legality of Respondent's detention of Petitioner can be adequately and effectively tested by motion filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the sentencing court, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, and it further appearing to the Court that although Petitioner filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to have the sentence he is now serving in the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas, vacated and set aside and that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied said motion and that Petitioner wholly failed to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals from the order denying said motion, the Court is of the opinion and finds that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and that same should be in all things dismissed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mills v. Kearney
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.