Morgan v. Wofford’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 822 · 1973
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2020
7 federal appellate · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Goldberg v. Kelly · Fuentes v. Shevin · Bell v. Burson · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[PJrior notice and an opportunity to be heard are prerequisite where $7,000 is ordered by a court of law to be paid out of appellant’s weekly salary and the penalty for failure to pay is imprisonment. Especially when criminal sanctions may be involved, we have always been careful to surround the procedures through which the state may deprive a defendant of freedom with safeguards against possible miscarriages of justice. Few procedures, we think, are more likely to encourage such miscarriages than this one; a unilateral statement taken from one party that another party owes him money is accepted as a true and enforceable obligation, and that other party is never allowed to challenge the accuracy of the amount claimed. Therefore, finding that due process has been violated by the sentencing judge and the probation office, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand that part of the case to that court with directions that it vacate the purported order compelling Morgan to pay $7,000 restitution. Of course, our determination that the present judgment of restitution is invalid does not prevent the state from causing such adversary hearing as is required by the Georgia statute in order to determine “by adjudication” what amount of restitution may be required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e have never intimated that abstention is appropriate where there is no state court prosecution to be interfered with and where the plaintiff seeking relief in federal court has no alternative forum in which to raise his constitutional claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Luckey III v. Harris“Having resolved this appeal on the merits of the due process argument, we do not reach the merits of the equal protection claim.”
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.