Sanchez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
417 F.2d 494 · 1969
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 1988 · most notably State Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson (1972), David McChesney v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary (1973)
37 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7237
Relies on McCarthy v. United States · Halliday v. United States · Turner v. Louisiana · Walker v. City of Birmingham · United States v. Louisiana
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Were the question of parole ineligibility before this Court for the first time, the considerable appeal of these recent decisions [of other circuits] might persuade us to a like position. However, in Trujillo v. United States, supra, and by implication in Dorrough v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 385 F.2d 887 , 897, cert. denied, 1969, 394 U. S. 1019 , 89 S.Ct. 1637 , 23 L.Ed.2d 44 , this Court rejected the argument that parole ineligibility is a consequence of a guilty plea within the meaning of Rule 11. We are bound by that result ff”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It will not be suggested by anybody that, before accepting a plea of guilty to an offense with respect to which parole is a possibility, the judge must determine whether the defendant understands the nature of parole, his eligibility therefor, and the circumstances in which it may thereafter be granted. The reason is, of course, that eligibility for parole is not a `consequence' of a plea of guilty, but a matter of legislative grace. It is equally true that noneligibility for parole is not a `consequence' of a plea of guilty...; rather, it is a consequence of the withholding of legislative grace. (emphasis added). Trujillo, supra, at 269 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"* * * [These matters are] collateral consequences, civil in nature, while parole goes directly to the length of time a defendant is to be incarcerated." 410 F.2d at 692 .”
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.