Edward Allen Mead v. Jacob J. Parker, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
464 F.2d 1108 · 1972
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Triestman v. United States (1997), Fred A. Cruz, Etc. v. W. B. (Bill) Hauck (1975)
45 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Bolling v. Sharpe · Johnson v. Avery · Cruz v. Hauck · WILWORDING Et Al. v. SWENSON, WARDEN
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the individual petitioner and to his unique problem[,] ... there can be cases ... where the relief sought can be of immediate benefit to a large and amorphous group. In such cases, it has been held that a class action may be appropriate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“habeas corpus is not an appropriate vehicle for a class action”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ali v. Ashcroft · Ali v. Ashcroft“even assuming the constitutionality of incorporating res judicata in § 2255, such a provision would probably prove to be completely ineffectual, in light of the further provision in the section that habeas corpus remains available to a federal prisoner if the remedy by motion is “inadequate or ineffective.” A prisoner barred by res ju-dicata would seem as a consequence to have an “inadequate or ineffective” remedy under § 2255 and thus be entitled to proceed in federal habeas corpus____”
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.