Brown v. McFadden’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.3d 1271 · 2005
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2021
10 federal appellate ·
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 O'Donald v. Johns · Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood · Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · White v. Scibana · Perez-Olivo v. Chavez
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner’s life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) 18 U.S.C. § 3624 (b)(1) is ambiguous and does not unambiguously support either argument; that a federal prisoner should get good time credit of 54 days for each year he is sentenced to imprisonment, or that a federal prisoner should get good time credit of 54 days for each year he actually serves in prison; (2) Even though the statute is ambiguous, the BOP’s interpretation of the statute that a federal prisoner should get good time credit of 54 days for each year he actually serves in prison is reasonable and therefore is due to be affirmed; and (3) The rule of lenity is inapplicable because of the BOP’s reasonable interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624 (b)(1).”
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.