Dhinsa v. Krueger’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 3013 · 18 U.S.C. § 844 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Fay v. Noia · Murray v. Carrier · Roviaro v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Pinkerton 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prove ... that there is 'no possibility' such consequences will attach to [the petitioner's] conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Dhinsa v. Krueger“the success of [Dhinsa's] current petition will not alter the length or nature of his custody,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Dhinsa v. Krueger“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dhinsa v. Krueger
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.