206 F. Supp. 2d 1068 - Valdivia v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (§ 20409 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Mathews v. Eldridge
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“creative solutions” to cope with the practical difficulties of complying with Morrissey, Ellis, 84 F.3d at 1422 (citing Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 782, n. 5 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 ), that cannot reasonably be construed as an invitation to avoid the fundamental requirements of Morrissey . Whatever”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Probation revocation proceedings are not `criminal prosecutions' to which the Sixth Amendment applies. (Citations.) Probationers' limited right to confront witnesses at revocation hearings stems from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not from the Sixth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The process due must include procedures which will prevent parole from being revoked because of ‘erroneous information or because of an erroneous evaluation.' ” Id. at 1074 (quoting Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 ). .”
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.