Weekes v. Le Fleming’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.3d 1175 · 2002
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States v. Casas (2005), United States v. Eccleston (2008)
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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
Relies on Bailey v. United States · United States v. Mauro · Ponzi v. Fessenden · Reno v. Koray · White v. Pearlman
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences— (1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or (2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; that has not been credited against another sentence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The sovereign that first acquires custody of a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to custody until it has exhausted its remedy against the defendant. Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 262 , 42 S.Ct. 309 [ 66 L.Ed. 607 (1922)] ... This rule of comity does not destroy the jurisdiction of the other sovereign over the defendant; it simply requires it to postpone its exercise of jurisdiction until the first sovereign is true with him or until the first sovereign agrees to temporarily or permanently relinquished custody. Weekes, 301 F.3d at 1180 . He argues that Weekes shows how the “rule of comity” is applied in cases such as his. However, it is precisely that — a rule of comity — a rule which only the sovereign may rely on or waive. See Ponzi, 258 U.S. at 260 , 42 S.Ct. 309 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Heath v. O'BRIEN“[a] sentence of five years means a continuous sentence, unless interrupted by escape, violation of parole, or some fault of the prisoner, and he cannot be required to serve it in installments. Certainly a prisoner should have his chance to re-establish himself and live down his past. Yet, under the strict rule contended for by the warden, a prisoner sentenced to five years might be released in a year; picked up a year later to serve three months, and so on ad libitum, with the result that he is left without even a hope of beating his way back. It is our conclusion that where a prisoner is discharged from a penal institution, without any contributing fault on his part, and without violation of conditions of parole, that his sentence continues to run while he is at liberty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Heath v. O'BRIEN
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.