United States v. Rocha’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 441 · 1972
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chimel v. California · Williams v. United States · Stevens v. Marks · United States v. Marchese · Rocha v. United States
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 2255 cannot take the place of an original appeal. More properly stated, § 2255 may not be invoked to relitigate questions which were or should have been raised on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.” United States v. Marchese, 341 F.2d 782 , 789 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 817 , 86 S.Ct. 41 , 15 L.Ed.2d 64 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Mitchell
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.