Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 496 F.2d 270 - Preston v. Piggman

Preston v. Piggman’s Empirical Analysis

496 F.2d 270 · 1974

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
April 2001
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2001

17 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1401974198019902000decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · Morrissey v. Brewer · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Brady v. United States · Gagnon v. Scarpelli

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show, if he can, that he did not violate the conditions, or, if he did, that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “We hold that appellant is entitled to a revocation hearing that conforms to the principles of Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, including the right to introduce evidence of mitigating circumstances and the right to have that evidence considered by the Board before it reaches its decision. * * * * * * At the revocation hearing appellant is entitled to be represented by his attorney who should be allowed to present witnesses and cross examine those who testify against appellant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““Counsel will be necessary to investigate and present to the Board in an orderly fashion the circumstances surrounding appellant’s employment and living difficulties in Lee County and also his communications with the parole officials.” Preston, supra, 496 F.2d at 275 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.