Fernandez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
941 F.2d 1488 · 1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Tannenbaum v. United States (1998), Anthony Lamarca v. R.V. Turner (1993)
9 federal appellate · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 963 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Wilson v. Seiter · Hill v. United States · United States v. Addonizio · Kuntz v. City of Dayton
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his court has a duty to 'liberally construe [a pro se litigant's] assertions to discern whether jurisdiction to consider his motion can be founded on a legally justifiable base.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2241 petitions may be brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.”
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.