356 F. Supp. 751 - Lambur v. Chew’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““The Commonwealth of Virginia, if it so desires, may choose to use the preliminary interview procedure for the further purpose of making an initial determination as to whether the violations found 7 justify revocation. This seems to have been done in the hearing given Lambur on January 9, 1973, by Campbell’s recommendations. But if Virginia does choose to use the procedure in this way and then fails to accord it to a particular parolee, whatever misfortune that may result to that parolee does not result from the violation of a federal constitutional right. Thus, it may be that had Lambur been given the sort of preliminary hearing on September 9, 1972, that he was given on January 9, 1973, the Parole Board at the hearing in October would have decided not to revoke his parole. If this is true, then the failure to give him a preliminary hearing contributed to his incarceration from October until January. But it was not the violation of the due process requirement recognized by Morrissey [Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ] that resulted in that additional period. It was, instead, the failure to make a preliminary recommendation as to the merits of his revocation that contributed to the period of incarceration. This failure does not constitute a violation of federal rights.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 373 F. Supp. 1045 - Brown v. Wilson