124 F. Supp. 2d 900 - Doe v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “Entered into by and among the contracting states, signatories hereto, with the consent of the Congress of the United States of America granted by an act, entitled ‘An act granting the consent of Congress to any two or more states to enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the prevention of crime and for other purposes.’ The contracting states solemnly agree: (1) That it shall be competent for the duly constituted judicial and administrative authorities of a state party to this compact (herein called the ‘sending state’) to permit any person, convicted of an offense within such state and placed on probation or released on parole, to reside in any other state party to this compact (herein called ‘receiving state’) while on probation or parole, if— (a) Such person is in fact a resident of or has family residing within the receiving state and can obtain employment there. (a) Though not a resident of the receiving state and not having his family residing there, the receiving state consents to such person being there. Before granting such permission, opportunity shall be granted to the receiving state to investigate the home and prospective employment of such person. A resident of the receiving state, within the meaning of this section, is one who has been an actual inhabitant of such state continuously for more than one year prior to his coining to the sending state, and has not resided within the sending state more than six continuous mon”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Doe v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole · 271 F. Supp. 2d 649 - Lines v. Wargo

2. “[A]n interstate compact is transformed into federal law when 1) it falls within the scope of the Constitution’s Compact Clause, 2) it has received congressional consent, and 3) its subject matter is appropriate for congressional legislation. Cuyler [v. Adams 449 U.S. 433 , 442, 101 S.Ct. 703 , 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981)] The interstate compact satisfies each of these conditions. First the need to assert cross-border control of people subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, whether individuals with detainers or parolees, is a matter that falls within the scope of the Constitution’s Compact Clause. Second, the interstate parole compact has received congressional consent. In fact, the legislative source of the congressional consent is the same for both the PAD [Interstate Agreement on Detainers — the subject of Cuyler ] and the interstate parole compact. Lastly, the subject matter is appropriate for congressional legislation, as the need for interstate cooperation to monitor and control parolees is the same as it is for inmates with detainers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Doe v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

3. “(c) Offenders from other states. — As a condition of obtaining residency in Pennsylvania under the interstate compact for the supervision of parolees and pro-bations, sexual offenders from other states shall be required to register and abide by the requirements of this sub-chapter and, where the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole determines it is necessary to protect the public, shall submit to public notification as provided in section 9798 (relating to other notification).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 271 F. Supp. 2d 649 - Lines v. Wargo