Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 502 F.2d 554 - Malone v. United States

Malone v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

502 F.2d 554 · 1974

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
17
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Bolinger (1991), State v. Jones (1990)

51 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 17 states

310197419801990200020102020decided

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. § 3651

Relies on Schacht v. United States · Hyser v. Reed · 5 Cal. 3d 759 - People v. Mason · Birzon v. King

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

  1. “[The convict's] freedom of association may be restricted if reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and public order.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] convicted criminal may be reasonably restricted as part of his sentence with respect to his associations in order to prevent his future criminality.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The conditions here involved are not intended to infer that each member of a group or organization with which the [petitioner] is forbidden to associate will necessarily lead him into criminal activities or be a bad influence. It is the incidental association with one or more who might lead him to future criminality that the Court seeks to prevent. If the [Parole Commission] could only prohibit active association with a group having an illegal purpose then the [Parole Commission] would be, in effect, restricted to the standard condition that the probationer obey the law.”
    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.