Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 F.3d 816 - Wilson v. Belleque

Wilson v. Belleque’s Empirical Analysis

554 F.3d 816 · 2009

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
June 2020
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Hayward v. Marshall (2010), Murray v. Schriro (2014)

16 federal appellate · 1 district ·

250200920102020decided

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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Blockburger v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland

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

  1. “[A] habeas petition raising a double jeopardy challenge to a petitioner's pending retrial in state court is properly treated as a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, we identify the issues in the two actions to determine whether they are sufficiently material and similar to justify invoking the doctrine; second, we examine the record in the prior case to determine whether the similar issue was litigated; third, we examine the record of the prior proceeding to determine whether the issue was necessarily decided in the first case....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
    2 later decisions 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.