Tiitsman v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.2d 678 · 1976
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably 51 Cal. 3d 437 - People v. Rodriguez (1990), United States v. Dane (1977)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Townsend v. Sain · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Hill v. United States · Bouie v. City of Columbia
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if appellant were uninformed of his probationary status and the conditions thereof, we find no gross abuse of discretion “reachpng] constitutional magnitude.” The Supreme Court has established that the issue in probation revocation is “whether the court is satisfied that its action will subserve the ends of justice and the best interests of both the public and the defendant... “The duty placed upon the probation officer to furnish to each probationer under his supervision ‘a written statement of the conditions of probation’ .. . cannot be deemed to restrict the court’s discretion in modifying the terms of probation or in revoking it ... “The question is simply whether there has been an abuse of discretion and is to be determined in accordance with familiar principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion.” Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 221-222 , 53 S.Ct. 154, 156 , 77 L.Ed. 266, 269-270 (1932). Davis v. Parker, 293 F.Supp. 1388 (D.Del. 1968), in sustaining probation revocation against post-conviction challenge, rejected claims similar to appellant’s. “The contentions of petitioner rest principally upon a misconception of the power of the Court to revoke probation ... Petitioner assumes that the Court may only revoke probation for acts done by petitioner while he was knowingly on probation. But the power to revoke probation is not so circumscribed. . . “[Probation may be revoked for cause if a court is satisfied after a hearing that a defendant’s conduct h”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[E]ven if he may not have had direct knowledge that he was on [supervised release], any reasonable person should recognize that punishable criminal conduct could not be excused. It would ... [elevate] formality over common sense, if [supervised release] could not be revoked in such a case for the commission of a crime merely because no one specifically admonished him not to commit a crime.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[probation may be revoked for cause if a court is satisfied after a hearing that a defendant’s conduct has been such that the ends of justice and the interest of society and the defendant will be served by revocation. It is not a prerequisite to such a revocation that the conditions of probation be actually operative at the time .”
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.