Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 839 F.2d 300 - Green v. Arn

Green v. Arn’s Empirical Analysis

839 F.2d 300 · 1988

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
5
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably United States v. Swanson (1991), State v. Roe (1989)

37 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

2301988199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Pennsylvania v. Mimms · Carafas v. J · Vereen v. United States · McCorquodale v. Kemp

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

  1. “because significant collateral consequences flow from a criminal conviction, a habeas petition is not mooted merely by the petitioner's release from custody.... It is an 'obvious fact of life that most criminal convictions do in fact entail adverse collateral legal consequences,' and thus the mere possibility that such consequences may exist is sufficient to preserve a live controversy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the Supreme Court recognized that, because significant collateral consequences flow from a criminal conviction, a habeas petition is not mooted merely by the petitioner's release from custody.”
    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.