Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 F.3d 844 - Duckett v. Quick

Duckett v. Quick’s Empirical Analysis

282 F.3d 844 · 2002

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2022
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 15 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably Welding Services, Inc. v. Forman (2007), Crawford v. Jackson (2003)

9 federal appellate · 15 district ·

210200220102020decided

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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Bearden v. Georgia

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

  1. “either totally lacking in evidentiary support or . . . so irrational as to be fundamentally unfair.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “task is limited to deciding the minimum requirements of due process. They include (a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a ‘neutral and detached’ hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “was represented by counsel at the revocation hearing,”
    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.