State v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Widmaier (1999), State v. Carreker (2002)
38 state decisions
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
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · North Carolina v. Pearce · Brown v. Ohio · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Weaver v. Graham
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Parole is a period of supervised release 'by which a prisoner is allowed to serve the final portion of his sentence outside the gates of the institution on certain terms and conditions, in order to prepare for his eventual return to society.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a parolee is taken into custody on a parole warrant, the confinement is attributable to the original offense on which the parole was granted and not to any offense or offenses committed during the parolee’s release. If the parole warrant is thereafter withdrawn or parole is not revoked, and the defendant is convicted and sentenced on new charges based on the same conduct warrant, against revoked, between that led to the initial parole then jail time should be credited the new sentence. If parole is then the period of incarceration the parolee’s confinement pursuant to the parole warrant and the revocation of parole should be credited against any period of reimprisonment ordered by the parole board. Any period of confinement following the revocation of parole but before sentencing on the new offense also should be credited only against the original sentence, except in the rare case where the inmate has once again become parole eligible on the original offense but remains incarcerated because of the new offense. {Id. at 461, 710 A.2d 428 .1”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hernandez“[b]ecause we find that defendant’s argument must fail under both federal and New Jersey double jeopardy jurisprudence as it existed prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hudson , and because application of Hudson would only increase the burden on defendant, we need not address whether New Jersey’s double jeopardy jurisprudence should be reevaluated in the wake of Hudson . Therefore, the inquiry sufficient for the disposition of this appeal remains whether the administrative sanction of parole revocation was intended by the legislature to impose punishment or is punitive in impact in accordance with prevailing federal and New Jersey precedent prior to Hudson . [Id. at 446, 710 A.2d at 432 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Eisenman
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.