Bunn v. Conley’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.3d 1002 · 2002
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Simmat v. United States Bureau of Prisons (2005), Virsnieks v. Smith (2008)
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Farmer v. Brennan · Paul v. Davis · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A look at the history of this case suggests that a great deal of effort has been expended on an irrelevant issue: whether 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (b) empowers the BOP to notify law enforcement representatives of the release of a felon into the community, or whether PS 5110.15 is consistent with § 4042(b). The reason why both questions are beside the point is that they focus on a statute that does not prohibit the BOP from doing certain things; instead, it requires the BOP to do other things — that is, to notify the state and local authorities under certain circumstances. It is aptly entitled ‘Duties of Bureau of Prisons.’ It is a substantial stretch to infer from Congress’s decision to impose this duty on the BOP the additional notion that Congress meant to forbid the BOP from notifying interested public authorities in other situations, or in fact from doing a whole host of other things.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is one thing to say that permissible habeas relief, as our cases interpret the statute, includes ordering a ‘quantum change in the level of custody,' such as release from incarceration to parole. It is quite another to say that the habeas statute authorizes federal courts to order relief that neither terminates custody, accelerates the future date of release from custody, nor reduces the level of custody .... A holding that this sort of judicial immersion in the administration of discretionary parole lies at the ‘core of habeas’ would utterly sever the writ from its common law roots.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coleman v. Dretke“A Bivens claim can be brought as an allegation that a constitutional injury arose out of the actions of federal agents-regardless of the nature of the relief sought.”
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.