Clark v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
764 F.3d 653 · 2014
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Anders v. California · McCleskey v. Zant · Gonzalez v. Crosby · Panetti v. Quarterman · Mayle v. Felix
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion to amend [pursuant to Rule 15 ] is not a second or successive [habeas] motion when it is filed before the adjudication of the initial § 2255 motion is complete. ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[w]hen a party seeks to amend a complaint after an adverse judgment, it [ ] must shoulder a heavier burden [than if the party sought to amend a complaint beforehand]. Instead of meeting only the modest requirements of Rule 15, the claimant must meet the requirements for reopening a case established by Rules 59 or 60.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Baum“attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits .”
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.