United States v. Binion’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anders v. California · Neil v. Biggers · United States v. Tabb · United States v. Fleischli · United States v. Lemons
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not address the sleeping juror and ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal because the record in this case lacks evidence relevant to those claims.... If ... in fact [he can] prove those claims, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district court would be the proper channel.”). 3 . See also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 487 , 106 S.Ct. 2639 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (rejecting a subjective test for determining ''cause” for procedural default, in part because under such a rule”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.