Davis v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Burns v. United States · Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad · Compagna v. Hiatt · Trueblood Longknife v. United States · Gaddis v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[probation may be revoked for cause if a court is satisfied after a hearing that a defendant’s conduct has been such that the ends of justice and the interest of society and the defendant will be served by revocation. It is not a prerequisite to such a revocation that the conditions of probation be actually operative at the time .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court [in Burns v. United States] also made it clear that the mere failure of a probation officer to inform a defendant of matters pertaining to probation does not prevent a court from revoking probation for cause.” (Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . If, at any time before the defendant has completed the maximum period of probation, or before he has begun service of his probation, he should commit offenses of such nature as to demonstrate to the court that he is unworthy of probation and that the granting of same would not be in subservience of the ends of justice and the best interests of the public, or the defendant, the court could revoke or change the order of probation. A defendant on probation has no contract with the court. He is still a person convicted of crime, and the expressed intent of the Court to have him under probation beginning at a future time does not “change his position from the possession of a privilege to the enjoyment of a right.” Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216 , 53 S.Ct. 154, 156 , 77 L.Ed. 266 . The statute is unusually broad and it must of necessity be flexible in order that it might be accommodated to the different situations surrounding various offenders. (Footnote omitted.) (Emphasis added.)”
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.