Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 761 F.3d 17 - United States v. Baxter

United States v. Baxter’s Empirical Analysis

761 F.3d 17 · 2014

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Slack v. McDaniel · Pinkerton v. United States · Bailey v. United States

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A 'district judge's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying a § 2255 motion is generally respected as a sound exercise of discretion when the judge denying the § 2255 motion also presided over the trial in which the petitioner claims to have been prejudiced.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the [defendant] must demonstrate that, in light of all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” United States v. Caso, 723 F.3d 215, 218-19 (D.C.Cir.2013) (internal quotations omitted), quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 , 118 S.Ct. 1604 , 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998). The Court must ensure that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by failing to raise it on direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas only if the defendant can first demonstrate either (1) 'cause' and actual 'prejudice,' or (2) that he is 'actually innocent.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.