Bucci v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.3d 23 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 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 Slack v. McDaniel · Hill v. Lockhart · Padilla v. Kentucky · White v. State of Maryland · Felker v. Turpin
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress recognized that 'cases might arise where, through no fault of the defendant, a ground for collateral attack was unavailable at the time of the first motion.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris“[s]uch a narrow reading of 'second or successive' would run counter to 'the clear intent of Congress that stricter standards apply under AEDPA.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris“claims not within the two categories [we]re meant to be barred,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Divris
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.