Leslie v. Randle’s Empirical Analysis
296 F.3d 518 · 2002
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Virsnieks v. Smith (2008), 152 Cal. App. 4th 63 - In re Stier (2007)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham · Maleng v. Cook · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · State v. Cook
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the 'in custody' requirement may be satisfied by restraints other than criminal punishment, ... the [Kansas] Supreme Court's conclusion that [KORA] is a form of civil regulation provides additional support for our conclusion that the classification, registration, and community notification provisions are more analogous to collateral consequences such as the loss of the right to vote than to severe restraints on freedom of movement such as parole.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“precedents that have found a restraint on liberty rely heavily on the notion of a physical sense of liberty-that is, whether the legal disability in question somehow limits the putative habeas petitioner's movement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Flaherty · May v. Carlton“[T]he holding in this case is limited to the habeas context and does not foreclose a plaintiff from litigating constitutional claims pertaining to a sex offender registration statute in a non-habeas proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.