Williams v. Mukasey’s Empirical Analysis
531 F.3d 1040 · 2008
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 44 U.S.C. § 1507
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Barron v. Ashcroft · Dusenbery v. United States · Jones v. Flowers · Anthony Lewis Whalem/hunt v. Rchard Early, Warden
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. , [ 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) ], and its progeny provide the 'appropriate analytical framework' for considering the adequacy of notice of government action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.”
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.