Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 F.3d 72 - Young v. Vaughn

Young v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis

83 F.3d 72 · 1996

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
4
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Pettiford (2010), United States v. Pettiford (1996)

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

200199620002010decided

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

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Carafas v. J · Custis v. United States · Peyton v. Rowe

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A post-conviction relief] petitioner in custody under a sentence enhanced by a prior conviction may attack that prior conviction, even if he is no longer in custody for it. However, he may do so only in the context of a challenge to the enhanced sentence for which he is in custody. In other words, a prisoner may attack his current sentence by a [post-conviction] challenge to the constitutionality of an expired conviction if that conviction was used to enhance his current sentence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Maleng as requiring the petitioner to do so by attacking his current sentence. [Cits.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]his difference only makes Young’s case stronger: but for his 1989 conviction, he would not be in prison or otherwise “in custody” at all. Young’s confinement is thus even more closely related to his 1989 conviction than if it were merely the result of a sentence enhanced by that conviction.... “If anything, it is even more appropriate for a court to examine an expired conviction in the present circumstances than for it to do so in the context of an enhanced sentence.””
    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.