Edmunds v. Won Bae Chang’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.2d 39 · 1975
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians (1996), In re Dodson (1990)
24 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Peyton v. Rowe · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when it enacted the habeas corpus statute, it did not intend to authorize federal intervention into state judicial proceedings to review a”
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.