Carter v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.3d 329 · 2011
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3599 · 18 U.S.C. § 4241 · 18 U.S.C. § 4246 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Pennsylvania v. Finley · Landis v. North American Co. · Whitmore v. Arkansas · Thompson v. Keohane · Ford v. Wainwright
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By applying section 4241 to habeas actions, Rees addresses the situation where a habeas petitioner awaiting the death penalty may seek to forego any collateral attacks on his conviction or sentence, and defines a statutory right for the petitioner to be competent enough to (1) understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, and (2) assist properly in his defense.” Id., at 333 .”
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.