Brock v. Weston’s Empirical Analysis
31 F.3d 887 · 1994
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Custis v. United States · Maleng v. Cook · 122 Wash. 2d 1 - Matter of Personal Restraint of Young · Tyars v. Finner
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual 'in custody' for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his difference only makes Young’s case stronger: but for his 1989 conviction, he would not be in prison or otherwise “in custody” at all. Young’s confinement is thus even more closely related to his 1989 conviction than if it were merely the result of a sentence enhanced by that conviction.... “If anything, it is even more appropriate for a court to examine an expired conviction in the present circumstances than for it to do so in the context of an enhanced sentence.””
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.