Fisher v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
757 F.2d 789 · 1985
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Capps v. Sullivan (1993), Satterlee v. Wolfenbarger (2006)
22 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Irvin v. Dowd · Rose v. Lundy · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Dames & Moore v. Regan · California v. Arizona
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“district court abused its discretion in barring retrial by the state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Flenoy v. Russell · Pruett v. State“While Congress has entrusted to the federal courts the power to dispose of petitions for writs of habeas corpus "as law and justice require," 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 728-29 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1645-46 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961); Levy v. Dillon, 415 F.2d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908 , 98 S.Ct. 1458 , 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978). A conditional grant of a writ of habeas corpus requires the petitioner's release from custody if new proceedings are not commenced by the state within the prescribed time period. United States ex rel. Brown v. Rundle, 427 F.2d 223, 224 (3d Cir. 1970). However, the state is not precluded from rearresting petitioner and retrying him under the same indictment. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 728 , 81 S.Ct. at 1645 . United States ex rel. Craig v. Myers, 329 F.2d 856, 860 (3d Cir.1964); United States ex rel. Lowry v. Case, 283 F. Supp. 744, 745 (E.D.Pa. 1968).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pruett v. State
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.