Chaplin v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
451 F.2d 179 · 1971
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2003
9 federal appellate · 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.
Relationships
Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Davis v. Attorney General of United States · Howard v. United States · Ernest J. Jackson v. Attorney General of the United States, No. 71-2024 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Defendant’s] state custody was predicated upon his violation of a parole condition, while the federal sentence was imposed for violation of... federal... laws. The fact that [his] federal arrest was one reason assigned for revocation of his state parole, does not make sec. 3568 applicable.” Id. at 181 (footnote omitted). 2 18 U.S.C. sec. 3568 has since been amended and renumbered to 18 U.S.C. sec. 3585 (b). The rule no longer contains the”
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.