Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 551 S.W.2d 838 - Murphy v. Commonwealth

Murphy v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2019

12 state decisions

5019771980199020002010decided

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 · Wood v. Commonwealth · Couch v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “[Appellee’s] constitutional rights are protected when revocation is being considered if (1) a written notice of claimed violations ... are served, (2) a disclosure of the evidence to be used is made, (3) an opportunity is granted to be heard in person, present witnesses and documentary evidence, (4) confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is afforded (unless a specific finding for good cause is made to the contrary), (5) a neutral detached hearing body conducts the procedure, and (6) a written statement is made by the fact-finder(s) as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking parole. We see no distinction between probation and parole because Gagnon deals with the former, while Morrissey the latter.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) written notice of the claimed violations of (probation or) parole; (b) disclosure to the (probationer or) parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a ‘neutral and detached’ hearing body ... and (f) a writ ten statement by the factfin-der[ ] as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking (probation or) parole.”
    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.