Link v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate ·

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is firmly established that the remedy provided by Title 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255 cannot be used to serve the functions and purposes of an appeal. Bright v. United States, 8 Cir., 274 F.2d 696 , 698; Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 254 F.2d 239 , 241; Glouser v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 853 , 856, cert. den. 369 U.S. 825 , 82 S.Ct. 840 , 7 L.Ed.2d 789 ; Link v. United States, 8 Cir., 295 F.2d 259 , 260; Black v. United States, 9 Cir., 269 F.2d 38 , 41-42, cert. den. 361 U.S. 938 , 80 S.Ct. 379 , 4 L.Ed.2d 357 . Once again we affirm the statement appearing in Taylor v. United States, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 194 , 195, quoted with approval in Link, supra: ‘Prisoners adjudged guilty of crime should understand that 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 does not give them the right to try over again the cases in which they have been adjudged guilty. Questions as to the sufficiency of the evidence or involving errors either of law or of fact must be raised by timely appeal from the sentence if the petitioner desires to raise them. Only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral attack may the attack be made by motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 , which was enacted to take the place of habeas corpus in such cases and was intended to confer no broader right of attack than might have been made in its absence by habeas corpus.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Glouser v. United States · Holt v. United States