Rawlins v. Kansas’s Empirical Analysis
714 F.3d 1189 · 2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 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)
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · United State v. Morgan · United States v. Hayman · Maleng v. Cook · United States v. Denedo
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In federal courts the authority to grant a writ of coram nobis is conferred by the All Writs Act, which permits 'courts established by Act of Congress' to issue 'all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.' "). "A petition for a writ of coram nobis provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal conviction for a person ... who is no longer 'in custody' and therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to entertain coram nobis applications in extraordinary cases presenting circumstances compelling its use to achieve justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]ederal courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis with respect to state criminal judgments.”
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.