Hiatt v. Compagna’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.2d 42 · 1949
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1982 · most notably Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), Hyser v. Reed (1963)
45 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1 (Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992) · 5 U.S.C. § 1001 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on United States Bilokumsky v. Tod · Anderson v. Corall · United States v. Compagna · Fleming v. Tate
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A prisoner retaken upon a warrant issued by the Board of Parole, shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Board, a member thereof, or an examiner designated by the Board. “The Board may then, or at any time in its discretion, revoke the order of parole and terminate such parole or modify the terms and conditions thereof.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Congress, in revising the parole law, Revised Title 18, Sec. 4207, changed the wording to read: 'A prisoner retaken upon a warrant issued by the Board of Parole, shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Board, a member thereof or an examiner designated by the Board.’ This change cuts deeply into the idea that the appearance is to be a trial. An examiner may conduct it now, and it would seem that the taking of the testimony of the prisoner, and perhaps his witnesses, is alone contemplated. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hock v. Hagan · Washington v. Hagan““(a) If it appears to the Board of Parole from a report by the proper institutional officers or upon application by a prisoner eligible for release on parole, that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the laws, and if in the opinion of the Board such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society, the Board may in its discretion authorize the release of such prisoner on parole. Such parolee shall be allowed in the discretion of the Board, to return to his home, or to go elsewhere, upon such terms and conditions, including personal reports from such paroled person, as the Board shall prescribe, and to remain, while on parole, in the legal custody and under the control of the Attorney General, until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced. Each order of parole shall fix the limits of the parolee’s residence which may be changed in the discretion of the Board. “(b) The parole of any prisoner sentenced before June 29, 1932, shall be for the remainder of the term or terms specified in his sentence, less good time allowances provided by law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.