Harrison v. Gillespie’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.3d 888 · 2011
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 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)
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Gregg v. Georgia · Ring v. Arizona · Green v. United States · Allen 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A pretrial double jeopardy challenge ... 'is properly brought under § 2241.' " (quoting Stow , 389 F.3d at 886 )); Harrison v. Gillespie , 640 F.3d 888 , 896 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) ("Our precedent makes clear that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper vehicle for asserting a double jeopardy claim prior to (or during the pendency of) a successive trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gouveia v. Espinda“In effect, Harrison is currently in custody under an indeterminate sentence for his first-degree murder conviction, and he is attacking the possibility of receiving a death sentence in the future. We therefore have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robinson v. Thomas“in a jury trial, an 'acquittal' ... occurs only when the jury renders a verdict as to all or some of the charges against a defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gouveia v. Espinda
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.