Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 F.3d 288 - Tredway v. Farley

Tredway v. Farley’s Empirical Analysis

35 F.3d 288 · 1994

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
3
states following
January 2005
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Ylst v. Nunnemaker · Custis v. United States · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Maleng v. Cook

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[b]ecause a person currently serving a sentence that was enhanced on the basis of a prior conviction is still in custody [on the enhancing conviction], he may challenge the enhancing conviction as constitutionally invalid even though that prior conviction's custodial term has expired.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'a defendant's failure to use an initial opportunity to obtain review of a state conviction --- in a direct appeal or collaterally, while still serving the sentence--should not bar him from obtaining later indirect review of the conviction now being used in a wholly new manner.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “'if a defendant does not have access to a fair procedure in a state court affording him a review, on the merits, of the constitutionality of a prior conviction after it has been incorporated into a new, enhanced sentence, a federal court may properly grant him such review.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.