Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 533 F.2d 871 - Gomori v. Arnold

Gomori v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis

533 F.2d 871 · 1976

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Barden v. Keohane (1990), Cohen v. United States (1979)

26 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

15019761980199020002010decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Morissette v. United States · United States v. Hayman · Warden Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero · Warden v. Marrero · United States of America Ex Rel. Benigno Marrero v. Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(t)he rule of presumptive concurrency of sentences . . . does not apply where one sentence is imposed by a federal court and the other by a state court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “has no power to direct that a federal sentence shall run concurrently with a state sentence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Furthermore, the United States Courts of Appeals have consistently held.that a challenge to a sentence as executed by the prison and parole authorities may be made by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, whereas a challenge to the sentence as imposed must be made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .”
    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.