Bailey v. Ebbert’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · Carey Warden v. Saffold · Clay v. United States · Holland v. Florida · Holland v. Florida
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his local remedy forecloses petitioner's opportunity to have his claim adjudicated in federal court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reed v. Thomas
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.