Harvey v. Shillinger’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 1528 · 1996
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Davis v. Executive Director of Department of Corrections (1996), United States v. Nguyen (1998)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Barker v. Wingo · McMann v. Richardson · Pinkerton v. United States · Moran v. Burbine
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'although findings of fact underlying mixed questions [of law and fact] are accorded the presumption of correctness,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“precludes a defendant from challenging a fully-expired conviction in isolation even though it may have potential collateral consequences in some future case. Further, even if the fully-expired conviction has, in fact, been used to enhance a subsequent sentence, it may not be attacked directly in a habeas action. Rather the attack must be directed toward the enhanced sentence under which the defendant is in custody. However, if the attack is so directed, the defendant may argue that his present sentence is improper because it has been enhanced by a prior, unconstitutional conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peters v. Lemaster“[T]he privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not offended when a defendant yields to the pressure to testify on the issue of punishment in the hope of leniency. A defendant’s choice to exercise the right to allocution, like the choice to exercise his right to testify, is entirely his own; he may speak to the court, but he is not required to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Maestas
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.