Taylor v. Sawyer’s Empirical Analysis
284 F.3d 1143 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 3584 · 18 U.S.C. § 3585 · 18 U.S.C. § 3586 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on University of Tennessee v. Elliott · Ponzi v. Fessenden · Heath v. Alabama · Baker Thomas v. General Motors Corporation · Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first sentence of this guarantee is clear that it does not bind the federal government but the many states. In context, it is each of our fifty states who must give full faith and credit to the acts of the other states. The purpose of this clause was evidently to ensure a measure of unity for the United States by requiring each formerly independent State to respect and give credit to the judgments of the others. By its terms, and in light of its purpose, the Full Faith and Credit Clause imposes no obligation whatsoever on the federal government.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, or if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively ... Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“), a statement that petitioner's federal sentence commenced upon its entry is mere surplusage. 9 Taylor appealed this ruling. In a published opinion, Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440 (9th Cir.1998), we affirmed the judgment of the federal district court, holding that the district court's statement when sentencing Taylor on May 10, 1993, that upon the imposition of the sentence Taylor would be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Sawyer
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.