Charles v. Chandler’s Empirical Analysis
180 F.3d 753 · 1999
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Winestock (2003), Cradle v. United States ex rel. Miner (2002)
34 federal appellate · 12 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 · Bousley v. United States · United States v. Hayman · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · Newland v. Georgia
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, 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.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Perez · Wooten v. Cauley“[CJourts have uniformly held that claims asserted by federal prisoners that seek to challenge their convictions or imposition of their sentence shall be filed in the [jurisdiction of the] sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and that claims seeking to challenge the execution or manner in which the sentence is served shall be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o circuit court has to date permitted a post-AEDPA petitioner who was not effectively making a claim of 'actual innocence' to utilize § 2241 (via § 2255's 'savings clause') as a way of circumventing§ 2255's restrictions on the filing of second or successive habeas petitions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murr v. Thoms · Pack v. Yusuff
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.