In re Baptiste’s Empirical Analysis
828 F.3d 1337 · 2016
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 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 Melvin Tyler v. Burl Cain Warden · Welch v. United States · United States v. Amedeo · Triestman v. United States · Charles v. Chandler
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Baptiste was construing ... 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(1), which says any “claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” Of course, [ ] § 2255 motions ... are filed by federal prisoners [and] § 2255 motions are certainly not brought “under section 2254,” which governs petitions filed by state prisoners. But the Baptiste panel ruled that even though § 2244(b)(1) does not mention § 2255 motions, it applies to them anyway, since “it would be odd [] if Congress had intended to allow federal prisoners” to do something state prisoners can’t do.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Anderson · In re Hernandez“it would be odd indeed if Congress had intended to allow federal prisoners to refile precisely the same non-meritorious motions over and over again while denying that right to state prisoners.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“applications for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion presenting the same claims we have already rejected on their merits in a previous application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.