In re Jones’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.3d 1295 · 2016
Citation profile
6 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 Russello v. United States · 135 S. Ct. 2551 - Johnson v. United States · Felker v. Turpin · Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co. · 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I agree that In re Baptiste requires us to dismiss Leslie Parker's request for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition. I write separately because I continue to believe that Baptiste 's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1)... is incorrect as a matter of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. U.S. v. St. Hubert“[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“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.