Madigan v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis
224 F.2d 577 · 1955
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Prince v. United States (1957), 151 So. 2d 825 - Roy v. Wainwright (1963)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United State v. Morgan · United States v. Hayman · Barrett v. Hunter · Meyers v. Welch
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The statute does not bar resort to habeas corpus if ‘the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’ There are a very few cases in which prisoners have been allowed to use habeas corpus on the ground that this test has been met. Each of those cases seems to have been incorrectly decided. Despite two early holdings to the contrary, the fact that the distance between the place of confinement and the sentencing court is great, and that much time will be consumed in making the motion and perfecting the appeal does not make the statutory remedy inadequate or ineffective. Nor, despite the decision of one case later reversed, 2 3 can the statutory remedy be bypassed because a co-defendant was unsuccessful in obtaining relief under § 2255. A few cases have held habeas corpus available after defendant has had a § 2255 motion denied. 4 This too is wrong. The court for the district in which the prisoner is confined cannot be permitted to second guess the sentencing court, and the court of appeals to which it is responsible. The statutory remedy is adequate and effective ‘to test the legality of his detention’ which is all that the statute requires, even though it is found on the § 2255 motion that the detention is legal. “If relief is possible under § 2255. it is the exclusive remedy and habeas corpus is barred for a federal prisoner. The writ may be used only by those who are not within the scope of § 2255, such as a person committed for menta”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Galante
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.