David CANTRELL v. Joe EASTERLING, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
November 2018
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · State Ex Rel. Holbrook v. Bomar · Archer v. State · 7 Smith & H. 329 - New York Casualty Co. v. Lawson · State v. Burkhart
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a sentence imposed pursuant to an inapplicable statutory scheme; (2) a sentence designating a [release eligibility date] where a [release eligibility date] is specifically prohibited by statute; (3) a sentence ordered to be served concurrently where statutorily required to be served consecutively; and (4) a sentence not authorized for the offense by any statute[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[H]abeas corpus relief is not available to remedy non-jurisdictional errors, i.e., factual or legal errors a court makes in the exercise of its jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“His convictions are not infected by the sentencing error; rather, Defendant's four convictions for aggravated rape remain intact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Phon v. Com. of Ky.
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.