U.S. v. St. Hubert’s Empirical Analysis
918 F.3d 1174 · 2019
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1254 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Batson v. Kentucky · Atkins v. Virginia
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]t is an aberration that a statute meant to govern the treatment of inmates who seek to file a second or successive § 2255 motion now serves as a tool for this Court to limit the review of prison sentences on direct appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“ability to administer justice to the people who come before”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[f]ew prisoners manage to squeeze more than 100 words.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.