Armann v. McKean’s Empirical Analysis
549 F.3d 279 · 2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 867 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 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)
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Edwards v. Arizona · Koon v. United States · Parker v. Levy · Schriro v. Landrigan
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ven if we were to find it preferable that the CAAF issue a statement that it considered all claims including those personally raised by the defendant, we seriously doubt that the federal civilian courts have power to impose such a requirement on the highest military court. ‘Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.