Goldyn v. Hayes’s Empirical Analysis
436 F.3d 1104 · 2006
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Agurs · Jones v. Cunningham · United States v. Debrow
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“custody” for purposes of habeas jurisdiction while she is on parole. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 , 243, 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). Further, Goldyn’s case is not moot because”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Goldyn v. Hayes
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.