Simon v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
359 F.3d 139 · 2004
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Bailey v. United States · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · McCleskey v. Zant · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Castro 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgement of a court of the United States if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or courts of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habe-as corpus, except as provided in section 2255.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that § 2244(a) permits courts to dismiss § 2241 habeas petitions when they raise claims that have already been decided on the merits in a prior § 2241 petition”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether, in what circumstances, and under what constraints a petitioner may bring a second or successive § 2241 petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grullon v. Ashcroft
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.