Williams v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
323 F.2d 672 · 1963
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Bradshaw v. Story (1996), Charles v. Chandler (1999)
30 federal appellate · 6 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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Sanders v. United States · Hill v. United States · United States v. Hayman · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · Patterson v. Medberry
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“habeas corpus is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy, to the relief afforded by motion in the sentencing court under § 2255.”
4 later decisions 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.