Vandenades v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
523 F.2d 1220 · 1975
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Santobello v. New York · Douglas v. People of State of California · MacHibroda v. United States · Johnson v. Avery
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not view the foreclosure principle set forth in Bryan to constitute an absolute and ironclad rule that the “magic words” of the Bryan-Rule 11 examination completely eliminate the necessity for a hearing on a § 2255 motion in all circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]ince we hold that he is entitled to a hearing on that motion, it is evident to us that the assistance of counsel would greatly benefit the district court and the appellant. However, we leave that decision to the discretion of the district court.”
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.