Archuleta v. Hedrick’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.3d 644 · 2004
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2024
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 4243 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 18 U.S.C. § 4247 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Preiser v. Rodriguez · Stack v. Boyle · McCarthy v. Madigan · Taniguchi v. Schultz · Robert Foulk v. Ronald Charrier
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ounsel for the person or his legal guardian may ... file with the court that ordered the commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether the person should be discharged ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“establish[] by writ of habeas corpus the illegality of his detention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy typically available only when the petitioner has no other remedy,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garcia v. Spaulding
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.