Hock v. Hagan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““The provisions of the old District of Columbia Code and the old Federal statute with relation to revocation hearings were substantially the same from 1932 until the Fleming case in 1946. Then with relation to the District of Columbia statute there followed the codification of its Code in 1947, and then the Moore case. The codification of the District of Columbia Code in 1947 and the amendment to the Federal statute in 1948 were in pari materia with the exception that the District of Columbia statute had this additional phrase, ‘at such hearing he may be represented by counsel.’ Over a period in excess of fifty years [Federal statute, Act of June 25, 1910, c. 387, 36 Stat. 820 ] the operation of the parole procedure under the two statutes developed marked disparities (See Lopez v. Madigan, D.C.N.D.Calif.1959, 174 F.Supp. 919 ), of which the matter of ‘personal representation’ is one. It is inconceivable to believe that this difference is merely accidental or unintentional.” “In failing to make statutory provision giving a right of counsel under the Federal statute one year after providing for such right in the District statute would seem to be a clear indication of its deliberate intention to provide different procedures for parole violators subject to the Federal statute. That the administrative practice for fifty years (since 1910) has been not to provide counsel at revocation hearings must have been in the thinking of Congress. A revocation hearing is not a trial, nor inde”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 190 F. Supp. 938 - Poole v. Stevens

2. ““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.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 190 F. Supp. 938 - Poole v. Stevens

3. ““At such hearing he may be represented by counsel.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 190 F. Supp. 938 - Poole v. Stevens