Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 887 F.2d 778 - Flick v. Blevins

Flick v. Blevins’s Empirical Analysis

887 F.2d 778 · 1989

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably United States v. Larkin (1992), Sweeney v. State (1998)

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

2501989199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 1202 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Neitzke v. Williams · United States v. Mauro · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Rasmussen · United Transportation Union v. Taylor · Campbell v. Miller

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

  1. “[w]hen the 'receiving' state is the federal government, whether the prisoner is returned to the sending state, or is compelled to serve his federal sentence (if convicted), is a matter of comity between the two sovereigns.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “required Flick's return to state custody upon completion of the federal criminal trial, but ... federal authorities in error transported Flick to the United States Penitentiary....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “his 'shuttling' between federal and state prison affected his rights in such a way as to require release from federal imprisonment.”
    2 later decisions 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.