King v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 1337 · 1974
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently August 1993 · most notably United States ex rel. Johnson v. Chairman of New York State Board of Parole (1974), Brown v. Lundgren (1976)
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 4201 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 5 U.S.C. § 1005 · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co. · Marcello v. Bonds
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] substantial argument can be made that some modicum of due process should attend the denial of the expectation of conditional freedom on parole inasmuch as its termination after having been granted inflicts a “grievous loss” of a “valuable liberty.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Giving reasons for denying parole is desirable for both rehabilitational and legal reasons. A prisoner may feel less resentful of a negative decision if he knows the reasons for it, and in planning his activities in the institution he ought to understand clearly what will help him to obtain an early parole. When the naturé of his crime is such that early parole is not likely in any event, he should be protected from unrealistic hopes that can only lead to disappointment and bitterness.. All this is the job of a prison counselor in any case, but the Parole Board can make that job much easier by formally stating its reasons.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in connection with any agency proceeding. Except in affirming a prior denial or when the denial is self-explanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial.” (emphasis supplied)”
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.