United v. Pursley’s Empirical Analysis
474 F.3d 757 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Wardell (2009), United States v. Pursley (2009)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 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
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Pereira v. United States · Zafiro v. United States · United States v. Mauro · Alabama v. Bozeman
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Article IV(e) applies when the prisoner is “returned ... to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to article V(e).” IAD (emphasis added). Article V(e) provides that, “[a]t the earliest practical time consonant with the purposes of this agreement, the prisoner shall be returned to the sending State.” Id. Read together, these words suggest that the prisoner must be sent back to recommence serving his original sentence to trigger the anti-shuttling provision. Under Article V(e), a prisoner should be returned to the sending state to resume his original sentence following the disposition of the receiving state’s trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“533 U.S. at 151 . (Emphasis added.) Stated another way, Accordingly, by its express terms, the IAD is violated under two conditions—when a prisoner, who is serving a sentence in the sending state and indicted by the receiving state, is (1) transferred to the receiving state based on its lodging a detainer against him and requesting custody, id. at Art. IV(a), and then (2) returned to the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Thomas
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.