Sweeton v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
27 F.3d 1162 · 1994
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Grinter v. Knight (2008), Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Patel (2006)
44 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1367 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Bell v. Hood · Hanna v. Plumer · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Anglo-American courts have always had the inherent equitable power to modify consent decrees imposing ongoing injunctive relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Michigan procedural limitations do not detract from the broad powers of the Michigan authorities to deny parole. So long as the parole discretion is broad, as in Michigan, “the State has not created a constitutionally protected liberty interest” by enacting procedural rules. Olim [v. Wakinekona ], 461 U.S. [238] at 249, 103 S.Ct. [1741] at 1747 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) ]. The parole authorities of the State of Michigan may have been required to follow their own procedural statutes and regulations on parole as amplified in the consent decree as a matter of state law, but there is not now any viable legal theory by which Michigan state authorities are required to follow such procedural rules as a matter of federal due process.”
2 later decisions 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.