Carnine v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
974 F.2d 924 · 1992
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably McIntosh v. United States Parole Commission (1997), United States v. Ready (1996)
45 federal appellate · 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. § 2312 · 18 U.S.C. § 2313 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 511 · 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 Brady v. United States · Santobello v. New York · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Lane v. Peterson · Jizmejian v. United States
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Plea agreements are unique contracts in which special due process concerns for fairness and the adequacy of procedural safeguards obtain.’ ” United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Carnine v. United States, 974 F.2d 924, 928 (7th Cir.1992)); see also United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 300 (4th Cir.1986) (in plea agreement context, defendant’s”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for collaterally attacking the validity of a conviction and sentence. Judicial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , in contrast, provides the appropriate mechanism in a claim concerning the computation of a sentence.”
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.