Esposito v. Mintz’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.2d 371 · 1984
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · United States Hoover v. Franzen · Echevarria v. Bell · Vicaretti v. Henderson · Gerald D. Norris v. The State of Georgia
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.
“the issuance of a detainer is an act of the state based on that state's laws and process, ... the detainer, in effect, is a custodial hold of the issuing state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis for a challenge to the validity of a detainer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”
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.