Love v. Menifee’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.3d 69 · 2003
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Teague v. Lane · Negron v. United States · Sawyer v. Smith · Okereke v. United States
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that ... the court which sentenced him ... has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 TJ.S.C. § 2255 H 5 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. White v. Craig“[Section] 2255 is generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner's challenge to his conviction and sentence....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alfred v. Bottone
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.