Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 FSUPP 889 - Fitzgerald v. Sigler

Fitzgerald v. Sigler’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1252 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Jones v. Cunningham · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Peyton v. Rowe

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

  1. “When the Board requests that a parole or mandatory release violator warrant be placed as a detainer against an alleged parole or mandatory release violator in custody as a result of a new criminal offense, the Board periodically conducts dispositional reviews of the warrant to determine whether the detain-er should be allowed to remain in effect or whether the warrant should be withdrawn or executed. The initial dispositional review of a case is instituted by a request of the prisoner or on the Board’s own initiative. It is presently the practice of the Board to conduct subsequent dispositional reviews of each case on an annual basis. If the warrant is executed, the Board will take action to conduct a prompt revocation hearing. In the dispositional review, which is based on the written record only, the Board specifically analyzes the factors enumerated in the attached Parole Form H-3(a), Summary by Case Analyst-Dispositional Review, in light of the prisoner’s record as a whole.”
    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.