Lee v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
501 F.2d 494 · 1974
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Billiteri v. United States Board of Parole (1976), Cohen v. United States (1979)
66 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia · Brown v. Allen
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . It established subject matter jurisdiction for the enumerated claims in the statute, which relate to the legality of the sentence, (citing eases) To allow jurisdiction under § 2255 in this case would defeat its purpose in creating subject matter jurisdiction over those claims concerning the imposition of the sentence. Congress only intended to shift jurisdiction over specific types of claims in order to distribute post conviction cases more efficiently. In this case, the claims involving the Board of Parole do not relate to Judge Henley’s imposition of the nine-year ‘Arkansas’ sentence; rather they involve the matter of the execution of petitioner’s sentences.” p. 500.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Act 93 defines parole eligibility for persons who committed felonies on or after April 1, 1977. Therefore, petitioner is not attacking the validity of the sentence imposed, but rather is attacking the execution of the sentence. A challenge to the manner in which a sentence is being executed is not a proper matter to be considered in a petition for postconviction relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bosnick v. State“[W]e have consistently rejected interpretations of the habeas corpus statute that would suffocate the writ in stifling formalisms or hobble its effectiveness with the manacles of arcane and scholastic procedural requirements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.