Thunder v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 817 · 1987
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Holloway v. United States (1992), United States v. Peterman (1988)
82 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Hill v. United States · Townsend v. Burke · Davis v. United States · United States v. Timmreck · Kaufman 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Merely 'technical' violations of the Rules of Criminal Procedure are not open under Section 2255,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]e do not hold that the rule in its every detail is required by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. But it is designed to safeguard the right, held to be contained in that clause, that defendants be sentenced on the basis of materially accurate facts, or at any rate that they do not be sentenced on the basis of any facts until a fair process for determining accuracy has been made available.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is an error which is neither jurisdictional nor constitutional. It is not a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice, nor an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure. It does not present “exceptional circumstances where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent.””
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.