Jackson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
423 F.2d 1146 · 1970
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection 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 Hill v. United States · Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham · United States v. Hayman · Peyton v. Rowe
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Peyton v. Rowe, . . . the Court held that a defendant while serving the first of two consecutive sentences could attack the second. It does not seem to us a significant stretch to say that he may attack a federal sentence, yet to be served, while defendant is in custody completing a state sentence. The same principles which dictated Peyton v. Rowe, seem to us to support jurisdiction here. To be sure, defendant is not physically ‘in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress’, but if custody is to be construed as single and continuous, we may join the courts as well. There is just as much reason to resolve the legality of resumed incarceration under an existing sentence before such resumption occurs as to resolve the legality of continued incarceration under a consecutive sentence yet to commence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Custody’ under Peyton v. Rowe, supra, relates to a petitioner’s ‘status for the entire duration- of [his] imprisonment.’ Under these circumstances, we think the petitioner, a state prisoner, may challenge his federal sentence although he has not yet commenced to serve that sen-, tence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.