White v. Hyman’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2018
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 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 Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Olim v. Wakinekona · Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson · Board of Pardons v. Allen
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In accordance with D.C.Code, § 24-204 the Board shall be authorized to release a prisoner on parole in its discretion after he or she has served the minimum term or terms of the sentence imposed or after he or she has served one-third (]é) of the term or terms for which he or she was sentenced, as the case may be, if the following criteria are met: (a) The prisoner has observed substantially the rules of the institution; (b) There is reasonable probability that the prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law; and (c) In the opinion of the Board, the release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McRae v. Hyman · Hall v. Henderson“Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Board may order a parole reconsideration date it determines to be appropriate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Decisions regarding parole shall be “in [the Board’s] discretion.” [28 D.C.M.R.] § 200.1. Although a numerical scoring system is created to guide the Board in making the decision whether to grant or deny parole, the purpose of the system is “to enable the Board to exercise its discretion.” [28 D.C.M.R.] § 204.1. Where the Board, in the exercise of that discretion, departs from the numerical system, it shall “specify in writing those factors which it used.” [28 D.C.M.R.] § 204.22. Departures must be explained, but they are not proscribed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McRae v. Hyman
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.