Timmreck v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 372 · 1978
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably United States v. Timmreck (1979), Salmi v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1985)
52 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McCarthy v. United States · Hill v. United States · Blackledge v. Allison · Bates v. State Bar · Henderson v. Kibbe
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]ne panel of this Court cannot overrule the decision of another panel; only the Court sitting en banc can overrule a prior decision.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice, [ ] or an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, if anything, this case may be a stronger one for foreclosing collateral relief than the Hill case. For the concern with finality served by the limitation on collateral attack has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas (footnote omitted). “Every inroad on the concept of finality undermines confidence in the integrity of our procedures; and, by increasing the volume of judicial work, inevitably delays and impairs the orderly administration of justice. The impact is greatest when new grounds for setting aside guilty pleas are approved because the vast majority of criminal convictions result from such pleas. Moreover, the concern that unfair procedures may have resulted in the conviction of an innocent defendant is only rarely raised by a petition to set aside a guilty plea” (citation omitted). As in Hill, we find it unnecessary to consider whether § 2255 relief would be available if a violation of Rule 11 occurred in the context of other aggravating circumstances. “We decide only that such collateral relief is not available when all that is shown is a failure to comply with the formal requirements of the Rule” (citation omitted).”
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.