Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 525 S.W.2d 677 - Practy v. State

Practy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2019

10 state decisions

4019741980199020002010decided

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 · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Hooper v. State · Gunsolus v. Gagnon

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

  1. ““Beyond that, the probationer’s rights are further protected by his right to have any adverse decision reviewed by this court and the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Thus, the statutorily mandated proceedings in this State for revocation of a probationer’s suspended sentence and probation unquestionably more than comply with the mere minimal requirements stated in Morrissey and Gagnon on which plaintiff in error Practy relies. In Mor-rissey the court said termination of the conditional liberty of a parolee ‘calls for some orderly process, however informal’. ( 92 S.Ct. 2601 ) This State’s procedure for revocation of sentence suspension and probation is an orderly one affording a probationer full protection of his constitutional right to due process.” Practy v. State, supra.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(b) Whenever any person is arrested for the violation of probation and suspension of sentence, the trial judge granting such probation and suspension of sentence, the trial judge’s successor, or any judge of equal jurisdiction who is re quested by such granting trial judge to do so shall, at the earliest practicable time, inquire into the charges and determine whether or not a violation has occurred, and at such inquiry, the defendant must be present and is entitled to be represented by counsel and has the right to introduce testimony in the defendant’s behalf.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.