Wilson v. Flaherty’s Empirical Analysis
689 F.3d 332 · 2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 16901 (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Murray v. Carrier · Schlup v. Delo · Jones v. Cunningham · Smith v. Doe · Maleng v. Cook
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Wisconsin sexual offender registration statute does not impose any significant restriction on a registrant's freedom of movement .... [It] does not limit where a registrant may move or travel within Wisconsin, within the United States or internationally”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To rule otherwise [and find that sex-offender registration requirements can support habeas jurisdiction] would drastically expand the writ of habeas corpus beyond its traditional purview and render § 2254 's 'in custody' requirement meaningless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“never held ... that a habeas petitioner may be 'in custody' under a conviction when the sentence imposed for that conviction has fully expired at the time his petition is filed.”
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.