Second Circuit· 2/20/2019

Dhinsa v. Krueger

Citations

917 F.3d 70

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that “monetary loss is a quintessential injury in fact, and even a small financial loss suffices to establish standing” (quotation marks omitted)
noting that a challenge “the execution of a sentence” may include a challenge to “prison conditions” (emphasis in original)
noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Ray effectively “abolished the concurrent sentence doctrine for direct review of federal convictions” (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
discussing the “in custody” requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254, and § 2255
construing habeas petition purportedly filed pursuant to Section 2241 as a second motion to vacate under Section 2255
applying the standard where defendant murdered witnesses after one witness started questioning the organization’s illegal activities and the other began cooperating with state police

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cabranes, Carney, Vilardo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Dhinsa v. Krueger

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.