Bowles v. Tennant’s Empirical Analysis
613 F.2d 776 · 1980
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Anderson Et Al. v. Winsett (1981), Roberts v. Corrothers (1987)
28 federal appellate · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Boothe v. Hammock · Griffeth v. Detrich · Shahid v. Crawford
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“sec. 4206. Parole determination criteria (a) If,an eligible prisoner has substantially observed the rules of the institution or institutions to which he has been confined, and if the Commission, upon consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the prisoner, determines: (1) that release would not depreciate the seriousness of his offense or promote disrespect for the law; and (2) that release would not jeopardize the public welfare: subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, and pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the Commission pursuant to section 4203(a)(1), such prisoner shall be released. (b) The Commission shall furnish the eligible prisoner with a written notice of its determination not later than twenty-one days, excluding holidays, after the date of the parole determination proceeding. If parole is denied such notice shall state with particularity the reasons for such denial. (c) The Commission may grant or deny release on parole notwithstanding the guidelines referred to in subsection (a) of this section if it determines there is good cause for so doing: Provided, That prisoner is furnished written notice stating with particularity the reasons for its determination, including a summary of the information relied upon. (d) Any prisoner, serving a sentei. e of five years or longer, who is not earlier released under this section or any other applicable provision of law, shall be released ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is apparent that the mandatory language of the federal parole statute, as qualified by subsection (c), provides an expectation of parole no greater than that provided by the Nebraska statute. Thérefore, at most, the federal statute creates a liberty interest entitled to the limited protection of due process held by the majority in Greenholtz to apply to parole procedures under the Nebraska statute. We need not define precisely the process that is due a federal prisoner eligible for parole, nor need we decide whether the federal parole statute creates a liberty interest entitled to the protection of due process at all, because we find that the Parole Commission in this case did not violate the requirements of due process applied by the Court in Greenholtz,”
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.