James v. Walsh’s Empirical Analysis
308 F.3d 162 · 2002
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Winestock (2003), Medberry v. Crosby (2003)
39 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anders v. California · McCleskey v. Zant · Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal · Chambers v. United States · Camarano v. Irvin
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[sjection 2254(b)(1) requires state prisoners to exhaust all available state court remedies before filing a Section 2254 petition, whereas Section 2241 contains no such exhaustion requirement. Had Congress intended to make Section 2241 available to state prisoners, it would likely have required, in the interests of comity, that state prisoners challenging the execution of their state-imposed sentences first exhaust their remedies in the state courts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A claim [under Section 2254] that [a state prisoner] is “in custody” in violation of federal laws is broader than a claim that the imposition of one’s sentence is illegal. A federal due process challenge claiming state incarceration beyond that authorized by a judgment and sentence would fall within this broader category of claims. The plain language of the pertinent statutes indicates, therefore, that a federal prisoner may challenge the imposition, but not the execution, of a sentence under Section 2255, while a state prisoner may challenge either the imposition or the execution of a sentence under Section 2254.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he present claim had not arisen by 1997, when James filed his first habeas petition. Because the claim asserted in the 1999 petition did not exist when James filed his 1997 petition, the 1999 petition was not 'second or successive' for the purposes of AEDPA’s gatekeeping provisions.”); Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d 720 , 724 (8th Cir.2001) (concluding Crouch’s parole-related claims did not abuse the writ and were not”
1 later decision 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.