Bennett v. Soto’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 161 · 1988
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2009
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Jones v. Cunningham · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · United States v. Addonizio · 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“([b]ecause Bennett is proceeding pro se, his petition for habeas corpus must be construed liberally as having sought relief under the only statute available to him, the Virgin Islands habeas corpus statute.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The jurisdictional authority of 28 U.S.C. S 2255 is limited to challenges to the legality of a sentence and does not encompass the power to entertain a claim for wrongful revocation of parole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] reasonable construction of sections 1304 and 1309 in tandem leaves some discretion in the district court to determine whether production of the petitioner is required.”
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.