In re McCall’s Empirical Analysis
826 F.3d 1308 · 2016
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 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 135 S. Ct. 2551 - Johnson v. United States · Lambrix v. Singletary · Welch v. United States · 133 S. Ct. 1103 - Chaidez v. United States · Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress did not authorize us to decide the merits of [cases like Hunt’s] in the first instance.”). I write solely to explain why I believe Matchett was wrongly decided. I do not opine on the merits of Hunt’s claims. 4 . In fact, the Supreme Court recently concluded that,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hunt“[o]ur court's massive effort to decide the merits of hundreds of habeas cases within 30 days each, all over the span of just a few weeks”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. U.S. v. St. Hubert“shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. In re Williams
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.