Schick v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 15 district · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 286 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice (1989), Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat (1981)
87 federal appellate · 15 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 24 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSchick v. Reed (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 858 · 10 U.S.C. § 871 · 10 U.S.C. § 877 · 10 U.S.C. § 918 · 10 U.S.C. § 952 · 18 U.S.C. § 4201 · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Furman v. Georgia · Linkletter v. Walker · United States v. Tucker · Trop v. Dulles · Burgett v. Texas
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 286 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'no-parole' condition attached to the commutation of [petitioner's] death sentence is similar to sanctions imposed by legislatures such as mandatory minimum sentences or statutes otherwise precluding parole”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.” As this power had been exercised, from time immemorial, by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance!,] we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it. A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officially to the court. It is a constituent part of the judicial system, that the judge sees only with judicial eyes, and knows nothing respecting any particular case, of which he is not informed judicially. A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown and cannot be acted on. The looseness which would be introduced into judicial proceedings, would prove fatal to the great principles of justice, if the judge might notice and act upon facts not brought regularly into the cause. Such a proceeding, in ordinary case”
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.