Eddleman v. Mckee’s Empirical Analysis
586 F.3d 409 · 2009
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wheeler v. MO DIR. OF REVENUE · Satterlee v. Wolfenbarger · Gentry v. Deuth · Fisher v. Rose · Eddleman v. McKee
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he limitation [that a state prisoner be held pursuant to a state court judgment] also means that, once the unconstitutional judgment is gone, so too is federal jurisdiction under § 2254____That a petitioner’s first trial was unconstitutional in some respect, generally does not mean he can never be tried again. The power to “release” a prisoner under § 2254 normally is not a power to release him forever from the underlying charge. It is the power, instead, only to release him from custody pursuant to the unconstitutional judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley
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.