Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 Cal. 3d 464 - In Re Jackson

39 Cal. 3d 464 - In Re Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably California Department of Corrections v. Morales (1995), Lynce v. Mathis (1997)

29 federal appellate · 83 state decisions

5001985199020002010decided

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 Escobedo v. Illinois · Weaver v. Graham · Dobbert v. Florida · 62 Cal. 2d 338 - People v. Dorado · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah

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

  1. “The board shall hear each case annually thereafter, except the board may schedule the next hearing no later than three years after any hearing at which parole is denied if the prisoner has been convicted ... of more than one offense which involves the taking of a life, and the board finds that it is not reasonable to expect that parole would be granted at a hearing during the following years and states the bases for the finding.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`relieve the [Board] from costly and time-consuming responsibility of scheduling parole hearings for prisoners who have no chance of being released.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The board shall schedule the next hearing, after considering the views and interests of the victim, as follows: (A) Fifteen years after any hearing at which parole is denied, unless the board finds by clear and convincing evidence that the criteria relevant to the setting of parole release dates enumerated in subdivision (a) of Section 3041 are such that consideration of the public and victim’s safety does not require a more lengthy period of incarceration for the prisoner than 10 additional years. (B) Ten years after any hearing at which parole is denied, unless the board finds by clear and convincing evidence that ... consideration of the public and victim’s safety does not require a more lengthy period of incarceration for the prisoner than seven additional years. (C) Three years, five years, or seven years after any hearing at which parole is denied, because ... consideration of the public and victim’s safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the prisoner, but does not require a more lengthy period of incarceration for the prisoner than seven additional years.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.