Bailey v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.3d 976 · 2010
Citation profile
11 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Nettles v. Grounds (2016), United States v. Havelock (2012)
11 federal appellate ·
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Bailey v. United States · Spencer v. Kemna · Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person [1] in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is [2] 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“We have repeatedly recognized that the imposition of a fine, by itself, is not sufficient to meet [28 U.S.C.] § 2254’s jurisdictional requirements.”). 6 . The Supreme Court’s broad construction of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“); Maleng v. Cook , 490 U.S. 488 , 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923 , 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (per curiam) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dominguez v. Kernan
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.