Brittingham v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 378 · 1992
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense v. Padilla et al. (2004), Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez (1996)
20 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 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
Relies on Steven Guerra v. Edwin Meese, III · United States v. Giddings · Dunne v. Henman · Demjanjuk v. Meese
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner's `immediate custodian.' A custodian `is the person having a day-to-day control over the prisoner. That person is the only one who can produce `the body' of the petitioner.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner's `immediate custodian,'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Long v. Healy · Ali v. Ashcroft
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.