243 F. Supp. 2d 1171 - Bohner v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3583 · 18 U.S.C. § 3621 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 558 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Spencer v. Kemna · Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · Lopez v. Davis
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“publishing this change as an interim rule in order to solicit public comment while continuing to provide consideration for early release to qualified inmates.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paulsen v. Daniels“the program statement[] may not be used to deny petitioner[s] early release.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Paulsen v. Daniels
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.