Thomas v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 84
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock · Board of Pardons v. Allen
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Governor’s constitutional authority is limited to a review of the evidence presented to the Board [under the same standards “on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider”]. Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. (b); see also Pen.Code § 3041.2, subd. (a). Our review indicates that the record does not contain some evidence to support the Governor’s decision and further consideration by the Governor will not change this fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall set a release date unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individual, and that a parole date, therefore, cannot be fixed at this meeting.”
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.