Gentry v. Deuth’s Empirical Analysis
456 F.3d 687 · 2006
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably League of Women Voters v. Brunner (2008), Leonardo v. Crawford (2011)
27 federal appellate · 3 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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Fay v. Noia · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Powell v. McCormack · Spencer v. Kemna
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] district court retains jurisdiction to determine whether a party has complied with the terms of a conditional [habeas] order.”). By contrast, when habeas relief is denied, neither party is ordered to do anything. 3 . Frew addressed”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although the Supreme Court had seemed to limit habeas relief to “the body of the petitioner” in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 430-31 , 83 S.Ct. 822 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), . . . the Court subsequently expanded the writ’s scope in Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968), stating that the petitioner’s challenge was not mooted by his release from incarceration prior to his hearing because, “in consequence of his conviction, he cannot engage in certain businesses; he cannot serve as an official of a labor union for a specified period of time; he cannot vote in any election held in New York State; he cannot serye as a juror.” Ibid. Therefore, “[o]n account of these ‘collateral consequences,’ the case is not moot.” Id. at 237-38 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Warden respectfully submits that the outcome D’Ambrosio seeks would be in derogation of the rule in Pitchess v. Davis 421 U.S. 482, 490 [ 95 S.Ct. 1748 , 44 L.Ed.2d 317 ] (1975) (“[Neither Rule 60(b), 28 USC 2254, nor the two read together, permit a federal habeas court to maintain a continuing supervision over a retrial conducted pursuant to a conditional writ granted by the habeas court.”).”
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.