In re Bradford’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.3d 1273 · 2016
Citation profile
5 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 Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Hagans v. Lavine · United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. · 135 S. Ct. 2551 - Johnson v. United States · Welch 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a petitioner fails to seek permission from the court of appeals to file a second or successive petition, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] prisoner may not file what amounts to a motion for reconsideration under the guise of a separate and purportedly new application when the new application raises the same claim that was raised and rejected in the prior 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.