Legal Opinion
Bruce Carneil Webster v. Charles A. Daniels
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided May 1, 2015No. 14-1049PublishedCited by 218 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, Chief Judge.
Since 1948, federal prisoners who contend that they were convicted or sentenced in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States have been required in most cases to present that claim through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion must be filed in the district of conviction. As a rule, the remedy afforded by section 2255 functions as an effective substitute for the writ of habeas corpus that it largely replaced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241; United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952). But Congress recognized that there might be…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Rumsfeld v. PadillaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1973
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by218 opinions
- Mark Hill v. Bart MastersCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- Todd R. Chazen v. Matthew MarskeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019
- Deandre Beason v. Matthew MarskeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019
- Israel Ramirez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- Montana v. CrossCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
213 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.