Davis v. Nassau County’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Gideon v. Wainwright · Carafas v. J · Custis v. United States · Peyton v. Rowe
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the fact that these collateral penalties are not merely a possibility, but have actually materialized ..., does not make them any less collateral and, thus, does not change the 'in custody' analysis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fulbright v. Biltort
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.