Hill v. Masters’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[s]erving a sentence imposed under mandatory guidelines (subsequently lowered by retroactive Supreme Court precedent) shares similarities with serving a sentence imposed above the statutory maximum. Both sentences are beyond what is called for by law [and] raise a fundamental fairness issue.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Wheeler · 352 F. Supp. 3d 767 - Anderson v. Ormond

2. “Thus, the misapplication of the sentencing guidelines, at least where (as here) the defendant was sentenced in the pre- Booker era, represents a fundamental defect that constitutes a miscarriage of justice corrigible in a § 2241 proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lester v. Flournoy · 352 F. Supp. 3d 767 - Anderson v. Ormond

3. “(1) the existence of a new interpretation of statutory law, (2) which was issued after the petitioner had a meaningful time to incorporate the new interpretation into his direct appeals or subsequent motions, (3) is retroactive, and (4) applies to the merits of the petition to make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harrington v. Ormond