Lambert v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Frost v. State (1994), Hopper v. United States Parole Commission (1983)
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Moody v. Daggett · Smith v. Blackwell · Smith v. United States
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] prisoner having served his term ... less good-time deductions shall, upon release, be deemed as if released on parole until the expiration of the maximum term ... for which he was sentenced....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... If a legal remedy is necessary in the absence of good faith effort on the part of the Commission, the remedy available to the prisoner or the parolee is to compel the decision, not release from custody. 122 Cong.Rec. S 2572, 2573 (daily ed. March 2, 1976) (remarks of Sen. Bur-dick). ... If the Commission fails to act in accordance with these deadlines, the ... parolee would not be automatically released ... but he could compel the Commission to make their decision promptly____ If for some reason they were unable to meet a time deadline, the ... parolee could solicit the assistance of the court under ... section 28 U.S.C. 1361.... 122 Cong.Rec. H 1499, 1500 (daily ed. March 3, 1976) (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeir).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the pre-1976 law, it is clear that a parole violator could lose both good time credits and credit for time spent on conditional release. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4205 , 4207, (1970); [2] . . . . Under the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, sections 4205 and 4207 were substantially changed and include no similar forfeiture provisions. Nonetheless, absent some legislative indication to the contrary, we will not upset the well-settled rule that once the appellant’s release was revoked because of his violation of its conditions the U.S.P.C. had the authority to forfeit the appellant’s good-time credit as well as credit for time spent on conditional release. .”
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.