Jones v. Salisbury’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.2d 1326 · 1970
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2010
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“<<* * * Ohio Revised Code Section 2967.03 is purely discretionary. The Ohio Adult Parole Authority may grant parole if ‘in its judgment there is a reasonable ground to believe’ that paroling the inmate ‘would further the interests of justice and be consistent with the welfare and security of society.’ The statute does not mandate a presumption of parole release and, therefore, does not create a protected statutory entitlement to parole on which appellees can ground their due process claim.” Id. at 867 .”
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.