Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 761 F.3d 809 - Light v. Caraway

Light v. Caraway’s Empirical Analysis

761 F.3d 809 · 2014

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
April 2022
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Lanier · Begay v. United States · James v. United States · Descamps v. United States · Chambers 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In Brown v. Rios, [ 696 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012)] we simply concluded that the prisoner could not have invoked [the new rule] because [the case on which it was based] hadn’t been decided by the time of the petitioner's first § 2255 motion. Brown v. Rios, 696 F.3d at 640 .... In other cases, however, we have “employed a slightly higher standard,” requiring that the prisoner “show that his claim was ‘foreclosed by binding precedent' at the time of his direct appeal and § 2255 motion.” Brown v. Caraway, 719 F.3d [583,] ... 595 [(7th Cir. 2013)] (quoting Hill v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644 , 648 (7th Cir. 2012)). We reasoned that "the fact that a position is novel does not allow a prisoner to bypass section 2255.... Only if the position is foreclosed (as distinct from not being supported by — from being, in other words, novel) by precedent is a § 2255 remedy inadequate.” Hill, 695 F.3d at 648 (quoting Morales v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668 , 672 (7th Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To satisfy this standard, the prisoner must show that "if [he] had made the argument he currently advances ... he clearly would have lost under” the precedent of the jurisdiction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the fact that a position is novel does not allow a prisoner to bypass section 2255.... Only if the position is foreclosed (as distinct from not being supported by — from being, in other words, novel) by precedent is a § 2255 remedy inadequate.” Hill, 695 F.3d at 648 (quoting Morales v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668 , 672 (7th Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To satisfy this standard, the prisoner must show that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device.”
    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.