Anderson v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 1985 · most notably Menechino v. Oswald (1970), Rose v. Haskins (1968)
11 federal appellate · 3 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Massachusetts v. Mellon · Burns v. United States · Escoe v. Zerbst · Anderson v. Corall · Whitten v. Tomlinson
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"No official is ever permitted to act arbitrarily or in violation of the law which governs his office. The extraordinary remedies, such as mandamus and habeas corpus, always afford protection against the unlawful administration of the law. Accordingly, if the board should promulgate rules and regulations governing the conduct of parolees which are not authorized by §§ 26-2305 and 26-2308, O.C.L.A., or if it should revoke a parole for some reason not countenanced by § 26-2308, its action would be unlawful and could be challenged in the courts."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * Even though a prisoner may not be entitled, under constitution or statute, to a hearing on revocation of parole, nevertheless, upon habeas corpus he may always challenge the action of the administrative body if it acts beyond its statutory powers, or fraudulently, corruptly, or on mere personal caprice, or in the absence of any information, and, of course, he may, by his petition, raise the question of his identity as the convicted person. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"No inmate of a penal institution has a constitutional right to the enactment of a statute whereby he may secure a parole. Neal v. Himes [sic], 180 Ky. 714 , 203 S.W. 518 . Nor does anyone have a constitutional right to the enactment of a parole statute whereby paroles can be terminated only in a manner which meets with his approval." Anderson v. Alexander, supra, at 451 , 229 P.2d at 651 . (Rossman, J., specially concurring.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.