Brown v. Lundgren’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.2d 1050 · 1976
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2012 · most notably Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex (1979), Spinkellink v. Wainwright (1978)
61 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 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 · Weinstein v. Bradford · Hyser v. Reed · Pickus v. United States Board of Parole
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`a prisoner challenging the decision of the board or the process by which that decision was reached must show that the action of the board was so unlawful as to make his custody in violation of the laws of the United States. There must be a sufficient nexus between the allegedly illegal action and the legality of his custody for habeas corpus to lie. A prisoner has no right to release on parole; he only has CT Page 7915 a statutory right to have the board comply with the A.P.A. and its own rules and guidelines. A departure by the board does not necessarily make his custody illegal.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“and therefore require some degree of procedural due process protection, See, e. g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972, 408 U.S. 471 , 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, the denial of that privilege may only be subject to the procedural demands of the particular enabling statute. Thus, while parole revocation and prison discipline are clearly within the ambit of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the mere expectation of parole release while still in otherwise lawful custody is not so vested as to result in a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rummel v. Estelle“of either a liberty or property interest. If there is no such loss, then the second question of whether the particular challenged procedure comports with fundamental fairness is never reached. In short, we find that the denial of parole as distinguished from the revocation of parole as in Morrissey, supra, is not a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rummel v. Estelle
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.