In re Lampton’s Empirical Analysis
667 F.3d 585 · 2012
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Padilla v. Kentucky · Ball v. United States · Rutledge v. United States · Berman 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) ... that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to case on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the Court had 'no occasion to address’ the precise scenario this case presents, we conclude, as a matter of first impression, that the basic holding of Mag-wood applies here: the latter of two petitions is not 'second or successive’ if there is a 'new judgment intervening between the two habeas petitions.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no new, intervening judgment to trigger the operation of Magwood, and ... Lampton's instant petition is 'second or successive' within the meaning of § 2255(h).”
1 later decision 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.