How cited: Cluster 558021 · Go Syfert

Cluster 558021

green · 25 citation events across 12 courts. Showing the 18 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Quote Authority · D. Haw. · signal: see also
See id. at 351–52; see also Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991)(“The caselaw does contain various intimations that imminent custody might provide a basis for habeas jurisdiction”).
“The caselaw does contain various intimations that imminent custody might provide a basis for habeas jurisdiction”
green Garcia v. A. Boncher (2018)
Quote Authority · D. Mass.
Cf. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (“[F]ederal habeas corpus review may be available to challenge the legality of a state court order of civil commitment.”); Fernos-Lopez v. Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991) (“[A] person incarcerated for civil contempt, even in the domestic relations context, is obviously in ‘custody,’ in the traditional sense, for the purposes of invoking habeas jurisdiction.”).
“[A] person incarcerated for civil contempt, even in the domestic relations context, is obviously in ‘custody,’ in the traditional sense, for the purposes of invoking habeas jurisdiction.”
green Garcia v. Spaulding (2018)
Quote Authority · D.D.C.
Cf. Duncan v. Walker , 533 U.S. 167 , 176, 121 S.Ct. 2120 , 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) ("[F]ederal habeas corpus review may be available to challenge the legality of a state court order of civil commitment."); Fernos-Lopez v. Lopez , 929 F.2d 20 , 23 (1st Cir. 1991) ("[A] person incarcerated for civil contempt, even in the domestic relations context, is obviously in 'custody,' in the traditional sense, for the purposes of invoking habeas jurisdiction.").
"[A] person incarcerated for civil contempt, even in the domestic relations context, is obviously in 'custody,' in the traditional sense, for the purposes of invoking habeas jurisdiction."
green St. John v. Campbell (2026)
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
We have gone so far as to deem custody "the essential statutory ingredient for initial jurisdiction." Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Michaud, 901 F.2d 5, 6 (1st Cir. 1990) (per curiam)).
per curiam
Rule Authority · W.D. Wis.
Meyer v. Weil, 458 F.2d 1068, 1071 (7th Cir. 1972); Elliott v. Cochise Cnty., 212 F. App’x 677, 678 (9th Cir. 2006); Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 1991).
Rule Authority · D. Me.
Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).
Rule Authority · D. Me.
Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).
Rule Authority · D. Me.
Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 244 , 116 L.Ed.2d 199 (1991); Flood v. Braaten, 727 F.2d 303, 308 (3d Cir. 1984); Franks v. Smith, 717 F.2d 183, 185 (5th Cir.1983); Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d 368, 371 (11th Cir. 1988).
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351-52 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Fer-nos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 24 (1st Cir.1991) (per curiam); Roba v. United States, 604 F.2d 215, 219 (2d Cir.1979).
Rule Authority · D. Kan.
Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 22-23 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 244 , 116 L.Ed.2d 199 (1991).
green Rubin v. Smith (1993)
Rule Authority · D.N.H.
Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 244 , 116 L.Ed.2d 199 (1991).
green Rubin v. Smith (1993)
Rule Authority · D.N.H.
Fernos-Lopez v. Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 244 , 116 L.Ed.2d 199 (1991).
green Fiumara v. McCarthy (1998)
Cited · D.N.H. · signal: see
See Rubin v. Smith, 817 F. Supp. 987, 991 (D.N.H. 1993) (citing Fernos-Lopez v. Lop e z , 929 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir.), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 886 (1991)).
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir.1991) (holding that the "custody” requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is determined as of the date a habeas petition is filed), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 , 112 S.Ct. 244 , 116 L.Ed.2d 199 (1991); United States v. Michaud, 901 F.2d 5, 6 (1st Cir.1990). 2 .
Cited · 1st Cir. · signal: see
See Fernos- ___ _______ Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991) _____ ________________ (holding that the "custody" requirement of 28 U.S.C. 2255 is determined as of the date a habeas petition is filed), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 886 (1992); United States v. Michaud, _____________ _____________ _______ 901 F.2d 5, 6 (1st Cir. 1990). -2- I.
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see
See Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella-Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23-25 (1st Cir.) (holding that custody not established where petitioner was not incarcerated until 22 days after habeas action filed), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 244 (1991).
Cited · 2d Cir. · signal: see
See Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez, 929 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir.1991); Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 841 (4th Cir.1986).