Williams v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 42 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[an] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section shall not be entertained by ... any Federal ... court if it appears ... that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reed v. Thomas · McCoy v. Thomas

2. “[W]hen Congress enacted section 23-110 . . ., it sought to vest the Superior Court with exclusive jurisdiction over most collateral ~hal1enges by prisoners sentenced in that court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 77 F. Supp. 3d 183 - Briscoe v. Jarvis · 77 F. Supp. 3d 140 - Rahim v. U.S. Parole Commission

3. “and holding that D.C. prisoners may seek federal habeas review of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims because such claims may not be raised in a § 23-110 motion); see also Id. at 999 (explaining that the safety valve of § 23-110(g) is triggered even if the prisoner could not seek relief under § 23-110 but had”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. United States