Warnick v. Booher’s Empirical Analysis
425 F.3d 842 · 2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2025
2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
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. § 3584 · 18 U.S.C. § 4161 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Benton v. Maryland · Auer v. Robbins · Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital · United States v. DiFrancesco
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'upset[ting his] legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court identified one necessary condition for a violation of the Clause on this ground — namely, that the adjustment violate a legitimate expectation of the defendant in the finality of his sentence. Acquittal, as a matter of constitutional law, gives a defendant a legitimate expectation of finality of his (lack of a) sentence. But the Court observed that “the pronouncement of sentence has never carried the finality that attaches to an acquittal,” and held that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause does not provide [a] defendant with the right to know at any specific moment in time what the exact limit of his punishment will turn out to be.” Nonetheless, although constitutional law did not create a legitimate expectation of finality, one might have been created by nonconstitu-tional law. In DiFrancesco , however, this was clearly not the case because the adjustment was authorized by the statutory appeal provision at issue. Because neither constitutional nor nonconstitutional law gave the defendant a legitimate expectation that his sentence was final when pronounced and could not be corrected on appeal, the government did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Warnick v. Booher“The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dominguez v. Kernan
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.