Coleman v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 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 · Flagg Brothers Inc v. Brooks J Lefkowitz · Board of Pardons v. Allen · Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc. · Boyd v. Ford Motor Co.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[prisoners have ‘no constitutional or inherent right’ to parole or a parole hearing. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). The mere presence of a parole system and the possibility of parole simply do not create a liberty interest in parole release. Bd. Of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373, 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 11 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 . Furthermore, the state of Michigan has not created a liberty interest in parole eligibility. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 791.235 (1)(West Group 2002); Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1164-65 (6th Cir.1994). Since Coleman has neither a constitutional or inherent right to parole nor a protected liberty interest created by mandatory state parole laws, he cannot maintain a § 1983 claim based upon the alleged erroneous calculation of his PGS. See Flagg Bros., 436 U.S. at 155, 98 S.Ct. 1729 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman v. Martin
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.