Pope v. Chew’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.2d 400 · 1975
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Sellars v. Procunier (1981), Bilbrey v. Brown (1984)
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Wood v. Strickland
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have no thought to create an inflexible structure for parole revocation procedures. The few basic requirements set out above, which are applicable to future revocations of parole, should not impose a great burden' on any State’s parole system. Control over the required proceedings by the hearing officers can assure that delaying tactics and other abuses sometimes present in the traditional adversary trial situation do not occur. Obviously a parolee cannot relitigate issues determined against him in other forums, as in the situation presented when the revocation is based on conviction of another crime. (Emphasis added) 408 U.S. at 490 , 92 S.Ct. at 2604-2605 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Commonwealth has not suggested, and we have been unable to imagine, how the liberty interests of one who is free on conditional pardon differ from one who is free on parole or probation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vincent Henderson“a federal court has inherent power to grant appropriate relief, and a declaratory judgment is always appropriate as a predicate to an award of damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Hamlin v. Warren
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.