Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 F.3d 708 - Aron v. United States

Aron v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

291 F.3d 708 · 2002

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
3
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Drew v. Department of Corrections (2002), Evans v. Stephens (2005)

39 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

610200220102020decided

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 10 U.S.C. § 2255 · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Duncan v. Walker · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States · Frazer 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the United States attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““ ‘Due diligence ... does not require a prisoner to undertake repeated exercises in futility or to exhaust every imaginable option, but rather to make,reasonable efforts.’ Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 712 (11th Cir. 2002). ‘Moreover, the due diligence inquiry is an individualized one that must take into account the conditions of confinement and the reality of the prison system.’ Id. (internal quotations omitted).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence,”
    2 later decisions 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.