Gaddy v. Michael’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.2d 669 · 1975
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Moody v. Daggett (1976), State v. West (2008)
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Morrissey v. Brewer · Patterson v. United States · Smith v. Hooey · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“he is obligated to show what evidence and what witnesses he would have presented at a timely hearing which were unavailable to him because of the delay and, absent such a showing, he may not claim prejudice in this particular”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“that 'where a warrant has been properly issued within the maximum term of the sentence, the execution of that warrant may be held in abeyance for the service of an intervening sentence' and again such delay is reasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The first hearing is designated as a ‘prima facie’ hearing, which should be held near in time and location to the place where the alleged violation occurred and which is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the parolee has violated his parole. The reason for this requirement as to time and place was the inconvenience to the parolee and the difficulty on his part in offering proof and refutation of a claim or violation if he were remote from the place where the alleged violation occurred. • The reason would, however, not apply if the violation were admitted or rested on a conviction of an intervening criminal charge . The ‘prima facie’ hearing could be held elsewhere in these cases, usually at the prison itself.” Gaddy v. Michael, 519 F.2d 669 , 672-73 fn. 5 (4th Cir. 1975). (Citations omitted) (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Younger v. Shields
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.