Earley v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
451 F.3d 71 · 2006
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Scott v. Fischer (2010), Sudler v. City of New York (2012)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Jones v. Cunningham · Bozza v. United States · Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler · Francis S. v. Stone
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state court's determination that the addition to Earley's sentence by DOCS was permissible is therefore contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[although Wampler does not identify the source of the rule that it announces, we believe that it is based in the due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. Wampler does not hold that the defendant could not have been sentenced to the punishment that the state attempts to impose on him. It simply recognizes that he was not sentenced to that punishment. Any deficiency in the sentence could have been corrected through the proper procedures.” Earley, 451 F.3d at 76 n. 1. 15 . In an opinion denying the Earley respondent’s petition for rehearing, we elaborated:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A warrant of commitment departing in matter of substance from the judgment back of it is void. Being void and not merely irregular, its nullity may be established upon a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner is detained, not by virtue of the warrant of commitment, but on account of the judgment and sentence. If the judgment and sentence do not authorize his detention, no “mitti-mus” will avail to make detention lawful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.