Smartt v. Avery’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.2d 788 · 1967
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1980 · most notably Herman Jackson, Jr. v. James B. Godwin, Etc. (1968), Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Hackett (1968)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Relies on National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Sherbert v. Verner · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Ex parte Hull · Torcaso v. Watkins
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The (Tennessee) parole board’s regulation, on its face, assesses an additional year of incarceration prior to consideration for parole of any state prisoner who files a petition for writ of habeas corpus and has the same denied. The right of a state prisoner to petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts on a claim that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is squarely authorized by federal law. The exercise of this right may not be denied by state law. No more may its exercise be discouraged by the withholding of a privilege that would otherwise be accorded by state law or regulation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shear v. Boles“"the regulation acts now as a present deterrent upon petitioner's freedom to exercise a present right. Only a prisoner with an inclination to play Russian roulette with a year of his life would be likely to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under this regulation." [12]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coffelt v. State“Constitutional rights may not be diminished or restrained by the denial of a privilege granted by law or regulation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coffelt v. State
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.