Addonizio v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
573 F.2d 147 · 1978
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1996 · most notably United States v. Addonizio (1979), Bonanno v. United States (1978)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. Robinson · Berry v. United States · Kortness v. United States · United States v. Salerno · United States v. Somers
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a sentencing judge's intent and probable expectations should be vindicated to the fullest extent possible.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a). A prisoner shall be released on parole if his record shows that he has substantially observed the rules of the institution in which he is confined on the date of his eligibility for parole, unless it is determined by an examining panel (as provided in section 4207(a)) that he should not be released on such date for one or more of the following reasons: (1) there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will not live and remain at liberty without violating any criminal law. (2) there is a reasonable probability that such release would be incompatible with the welfare of society; or (3) the prisoner's release on such date would so depreciate the seriousness of his crime as to undermine respect for law. 80 Comments of Congressman Rodino, 121 Cong.Rec.H. 4510 (daily ed. May 21, 1975) 81 See e. g. Comments of Congressman Kastenmeir Id. at H. 4511; Comments of Congressman Railsback Id. at H. 4511; Comments of Congressman Danielson Id. at H. 4512; Comments of Congressman Badillo Id. at H. 4516; Comments of Congressman Coghlin Id. at H. 4516 82 Comments of Congressman Drinan at Id. H. 4513 ("the committee clearly expressed its objection to a checklist or prototype denial statement”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because of the magnitude of this crime (money extorted totalling approximately $241,000) its economic effect on innocent citizens of Newark, and because the offense involved a serious breach of public trust over a substantial period of time, a decision above the guidelines is warranted. Parole at this time would depreciate the seriousness of the offense and promote disrespect for the law.”
2 later decisions 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.