Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 605 F.2d 661 - Boothe v. Hammock

Boothe v. Hammock’s Empirical Analysis

605 F.2d 661 · 1979

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Board of Pardons v. Allen (1987), Anderson Et Al. v. Winsett (1981)

52 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

60019791980199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · United States ex rel. Johnson v. Chairman of New York State Board of Parole · Divine v. Amato · Cofone v. Manson

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

  1. “if there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his crime as to undermine respect for law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[i]t is apparent that New York's parole provisions ... do not establish a scheme whereby parole shall be ordered unless specified conditions are found to exist .... [N]o entitlement to release is created [by the parole provisions].”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(i) the seriousness of the offense with due consideration to the type of sentence, length of sentence and recommendations of the sentencing court, the district attorney, the attorney for the inmate, the pre-sentence probation report as well as consideration of any mitigating and aggravating factors, and activities following arrest and prior to confinement; and (ii) prior criminal record, including the nature and pattern of offenses, adjustment to any previous probation or parole supervision and institutional confinement.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.