Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 985 F.2d 1012 - United States v. Abarca

United States v. Abarca’s Empirical Analysis

985 F.2d 1012 · 1993

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
2
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably United States v. Bushert (1993), United States of America v. Tommy Don Cockerham (2001)

63 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

6601993200020102020decided

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. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Abney v. United States · Girling Health Systems, Inc. v. United States · United States v. Marin · United States v. Navarro-Botello

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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]e do not hold that Abarca's waiver categorically forecloses him from bringing any section 2255 proceeding, such as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or involuntariness of waiver ...”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “knowing and voluntary waiver of a statutory right is enforceable”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”
    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.