Hernandez v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
204 F.3d 861 · 2000
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2005), Sustache-Rivera v. United States (2000)
18 federal appellate · 17 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · Fw/pbs Inc II v. City of Dallas Mjr Inc · United States v. Hayman · Doganiere v. United States · Wofford v. Scott
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 73 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.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]etitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In particular, a habeas petition filed pursuant to 2241 must be heard in the custodial court . . . , even if the 2241 petition contests the legality of a sentence by falling under the savings clause.”
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.