Eldridge v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jones v. Cunningham · Parker v. Ellis · Rowe v. Peyton · Blowe v. Peyton · Nathan Thomas v. W. K. Cunningham, Jr., Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As required by that statute [28 U. S.C. § 2241] petitioner must be in ‘custody’ before a federal court can grant him relief in a habeas corpus proceeding. The definition of ‘custody’ has been liberalized and broadened to achieve the historical purpose of the writ of habeas corpus. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); Rowe v. Peyton, 383 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1967). It is clear that the requirement of ‘custody,’ as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, does not now contemplate an actual, physical custody in prison or jail. Jones v. Cunningham, supra, 371 U.S. at 238 , 83 S.Ct. 373 . However, this requirement of ‘custody’ is still present in 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and must have some effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.