Barton v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
791 F.2d 265 · 1986
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Triestman v. United States (1997), United States v. Perez (1997)
41 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Sanders v. United States · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Griffin v. United States · California v. Arizona · Zurcher v. Stanford Daily
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'section 2255 may not be employed to relitigate questions which were raised and considered on direct appeal,'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief of behalf of the same prisoner,”
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.