Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 F.2d 27 - Grasso v. Norton

Grasso v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis

520 F.2d 27 · 1975

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Wright v. United States Board of Parole (1977), Rodriguez v. United States Parole Commission (1979)

42 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

54019751980199020002010decided

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 Maness v. Meyers · Walker v. City of Birmingham · United States v. Tucker · Scarpa v. U. S. Board of Parole · United States v. Slusky

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

  1. ““The decision of the sentencing judge to impose an (a)(2) sentence, beside relieving a defendant from the restriction placed on eligibility for parole by Section 4202, is an expression of the court’s expectations (1) that serious and meaningful parole consideration will be given to the prisoner by the Parole Board at an earlier date than the one-third point of his sentence permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 4202 ; and (2) that institutional performance and response to rehabilitative programs will be given due effect by the Parole Board in determining whether parole should be granted. These expectations are in accord with the purposes of Section 4208(a)(2), as indicated by its legislative history and in the context of the statutory scheme of which it is a part. It is also in accord with the views expressed in texts and guides available to Federal Judges on the subject of sentencing, which are thoroughly discussed in Garafola [v. Benson], supra, 505 F.2d at 1218 .” 11”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(a) To establish a national paroling policy, promote a more consistent exercise of discretion, and enable fairer and more equitable decision-making without removing individual case consideration, the United States Board of Parole has adopted guidelines for parole release consideration. (c) It is to be stressed that these ranges are merely guidelines. Where the circumstances warrant, decisions outside the guidelines (either above or below) may be rendered. For example, cases with exceptionally good institutional program achievement may be considered for earlier release.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Upon entering a judgment of conviction, the court having jurisdiction to impose sentence, when in its opinion the ends of justice and best interests of the public require that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, may ... (2) . . . fix the maximum sentence of imprisonment to be served in which event the court may specify that the prisoner may be released on parole at such time as the Commission may determine.”
    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.