Rose v. Haskins’s Empirical Analysis
388 F.2d 91 · 1968
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 1 Cal. 3d 641 - In Re Martinez (1970)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Gault · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Mempa v. Rhay · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Greene v. McElroy
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] state prisoner does not have a constitutional right to a hearing on a state parole revocation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murray v. Page · Rose v. Haskins““It is axiomatic that the administration of the state’s penal system is exclusively a state function under the reserved powers in the Constitution. The state may thus enact legislation defining what conduct constitutes a crime and fixing the sentence to be imposed upon conviction therefor and the manner in which the sentence shall be served. The execution of the sentence is within the authority of the state’s executive department. The state is not required to provide for parole and, if it does, may stipulate its terms and conditions as well as the status of a parolee. Parole is a matter of grace in Ohio, * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * if the negative pregnant that is implicit in the contract theory is true (that if the parolee had not agreed to summary revocation he would have had the right to a hearing), then that theory has recognized that a right to a hearing is inherent in the revocation situation. Waiver of such a valuable right is not to be lightly determined, and when the ‘choice’ of the parolee is to remain in prison or accept such a burdensome provision, the ‘choice’ to accept parole can hardly be termed a voluntary waiver of the right to a hearing. * * *»”
2 later decisions 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.