Francis v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis
798 F.3d 33 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2024
2 federal appellate · 10 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 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3624 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Preiser v. Rodriguez · United States v. Johnson · Pepper v. United States · Pepper 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to contest one's imprisonment in a specific facility”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. Penders
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.