Bennett v. Ridley’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 district · 17 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Price v. Johnston · Jones v. Cunningham · Moody v. Daggett · Morgan 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court does not review the merits of the [D.C. Parole] Board’s decision, but only whether the petitioner has been deprived of his legal rights by the manner in which the revocation hearing was- conducted, in order to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stevens v. Quick“is not now and never has been a static, narrow, formalistic remedy; its scope has grown to achieve its grand purpose — the protection of individuals against erosion of their right to be free from wrongful restraints upon their liberty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Abdullah v. Roach
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.