Lefkowitz v. Fair’s Empirical Analysis
816 F.2d 17 · 1987
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1993), Garita Hotel Limited Partnership Etc v. Ponce Federal Bank Fsb (1992)
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Preiser v. Rodriguez · Rose v. Lundy · Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty.
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“uncertainty as to the meaning and intendment of a district court order can sometimes best be dispelled by deference to the views of the writing judge”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Adverse occupational and employment consequences are a frequent aftermath of virtually any felony conviction. Gov ernment regulation, in the nature of the imposition of civil disabilities — say, loss of voting rights or disqualification from obtaining a gun permit — often follows a defendant long after his sentence has been served. To hold that the custody requirement is so elastic as to reach such sequellae would be to stretch the concept of custody out of all meaningful proportion, to render it limp and shapeless — in the last analysis, to make habeas corpus routinely available to all who suffer harm emanating from a state conviction, regardless of actual custodial status. We abjure such an expansive rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Flaherty“has been broadened so that, in the § 2254(a) context, it is no longer limited to physical custody. See Justices of the Boston Mun. Ct. v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 , 301, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 1810, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984) (pretrial release on personal recognizance constitutes custody); Hensley, 411 U.S. at 349-51, 93 S.Ct. at 1573-75 (release on personal recognizance pending execution of sentence constitutes custody); Jones, 371 U.S. at 240-43, 83 S.Ct. at 375-77 (parole tantamount to custody); see also Barry, 864 F.2d at 296 (probation constitutes custody for habeas corpus purposes). 66 Despite this”
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.