Hahn v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 100 · 1970
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), State v. Smith (1988)
31 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Relationships
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Shapiro v. Thompson · Sherbert v. Verner · Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to mootness, although petitioner is not presently serving his challenged Wisconsin sentence, this appeal is not moot. The probation revocation affixes a permanent blemish to petitioner’s record. If petitioner ever has future difficulties with the law in Wisconsin, the judge could take into account the fact that petitioner’s probationary status was at one time revoked. * * * Therefore, there are collateral consequences in allowing petitioner’s Wisconsin burglary conviction and parole revocation to remain on his record. (Citations omitted.)””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * if the negative pregnant that is implicit in the contract theory is true (that if the parolee had not agreed to summary revocation he would have had the right to a hearing), then that theory has recognized that a right to a hearing is inherent in the revocation situation. Waiver of such a valuable right is not to be lightly determined, and when the ‘choice’ of the parolee is to remain in prison or accept such a burdensome provision, the ‘choice’ to accept parole can hardly be termed a voluntary waiver of the right to a hearing. * * *»”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be 'condemned to suffer grievous loss’, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental interest in summary-adjudication.” Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. at 262-263 , 90 S.Ct. at 1017 .”
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.