97 F. App'x 246 - Hall v. Pratt’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3162 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Steele v. Young · Fassler v. United States · Gonzales v. McKune
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To be eligible for habeas relief under § 2241, a federal pretrial detainee generally must exhaust other available remedies. The reasons for this requirement are rooted not in comity (as is the case with state prisoners), but in concerns for judicial economy. Allowing federal prisoners to bring claims in habeas proceedings that they have not yet, but still could, bring in the trial court, would result in needless duplication of judicial work and would encourage “judge shopping.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Medina v. Choate
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.