Virsnieks v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 707 · 2008
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably State v. Smith (2010), Allen v. Chandler (2009)
18 federal appellate · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (Prison Camera Reform Act of 2021) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Williams v. Taylor · Brady v. United States · Teague v. Lane · McCarthy 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Habeas lies to allow attacks on wrongful custodies. There is therefore no reason why the presence of a plausible claim against a custodial punishment should make a noncustodial punishment more amenable to collateral review than it otherwise might be_Collateral relief from noncustodial punishments is not made more readily available to a petitioner just because that petitioner happens at the time to be subject also to custodial penalties. And, the mere fact that the sentencing court chose to impose incarceration on a defendant in addition to restitution does not, as to the restitution order, distinguish that defendant from someone who, having been convicted, received a punishment that did not include any custodial element.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Obviously, if [the petitioner] fails to follow the registration requirements of the Washington law, he could be criminally prosecuted, and the resulting sentence might very well limit his movement, for example, through incarceration. But this potentiality for future incarceration, dependent entirely on whether [the petitioner] chooses to obey the Washington statute, actually makes the sex offender law very similar to the restitution orders thát other courts have found not to create custody.... We do not think that the mere potential for future incarceration, without any present restraint on liberty, can satisfy the “in custody” requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hansen v. Marr“Section 2254 authorizes federal courts to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a) (emphasis added). The plain language of the statute therefore commands that courts entertain habeas petitions “only” on the ground that a prisoner is “in custody,” and, by linking a court’s ability to entertain a habeas petition to the particular relief sought, the language of the statute prevents consideration of pendent challenges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bailey v. Hill
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.