United States v. Condit’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.2d 1096 · 1980
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Bradshaw v. Story (1996), United States v. Kamer (1986)
30 federal appellate · 3 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jones v. Cunningham · United States v. Hayman · Hahn v. Burke · Smith v. United States
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f other circuits were to become the situses for routine collateral attacks on the procedures followed by the district courts of the Tenth Circuit, there would be a substantial danger of inconsistent, even contradictory, decisions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the petitioner's] detention.”
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.