Young v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 11 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Hibbs Director Arizona Department of Revenue v. Winn et al. (2004), Friedl v. City of New York (2000)
60 federal appellate · 11 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedHarper v. Young (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Sandin v. Conner · Meachum v. Fano · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Missouri v. Jenkins
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The liberty of a parolee enables him to do a wide range of things open to persons who have never been convicted of any crime.... Subject to the conditions of his parole, he can be gainfully em ployed and is free to be with family and friends and to form the other enduring attachments of normal life. Though the State properly subjects him to many restrictions not applicable to other citizens, his condition is very different from that of confinement in a prison.... The parolee has relied on at least an implicit promise that parole will be revoked only if he fails to live up to the parole conditions.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“kept his own residence; he sought, obtained, and maintained a job; and he lived a life generally free of the incidents of imprisonment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Preparóle] was in effect whenever the population of the prison system exceeded 95% of its capacity. An inmate could be placed on preparóle after serving 15% of his sentence, and he was eligible for parole when one-third of his sentence had elapsed. The Pardon and Parole Board (Board) had a role in the placement of both parolees and preparolees. The Board itself determined who could participate in [preparóle], while the Governor, based on the Board’s recommendation, decided whether a prisoner would be paroled.... [Participants in preparóle were released subject to constraints similar to those imposed on parolees.”
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.