Barden v. Keohane’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 476 · 1990
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Johnson v. Moore (1991), Francisco Rios v. Ron Wiley Ron Wiley (2000)
43 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 state decisions
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. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 3585 · 18 U.S.C. § 3621 · 18 U.S.C. § 4082 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Murray v. Carrier · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Carnegie v. United States · Hewitt v. Helms
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence— (A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or (B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate; and (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Whether Barden’s actions while under confinement in both the Pennsylvania and federal prisons, the intent of the state judge that Barden’s state sentence be served concurrently with the earlier federal sentence and any other broadly relevant characteristics or circumstances entitle Barden to relief in the form of a nunc pro tunc designation of the state prison as a place óf federal confinement, even if the failure so to designate it was the result of mistake or inadvertence, is a matter within the Bureau’s sound discretion. We hold only that the Bureau has power to grant relief, that Barden is entitled to have the Bureau examine his case and that habeas as authorized by 18 U.S.C.A. § 2241 is an appropriate judicial means of compelling that examination. A redesignation of the state prison where he spent more than ten years as a place of federal confinement plainly would affect the absolute term of his confinement as well as his right to parole. ... Under the statute and the Bureau’s regulations, Barden is entitled to “fair treatment” on his application for nunc pro tunc designation of the state facility as a place of confinement for his federal sentence. See 28 C.F.R. 541.12 (1989) (“[Inmates] have the right to expect that as a human being [they] will be treated respectfully, impartially and fairly by all personnel.”).”
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.