Thomas Hogge v. Eric Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3624 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Barber v. Thomas · Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
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.
“The most glaring conflict is that the BOP’s calculation method undermines § 3624(b)(1) by rendering worthless any GCT earned during the concurrent portion of Hogge’s sentence. This is at odds with the clear purpose of the GCT statute to provide inmates with an incentive to comply with prison rules. See Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 482 , 130 S.Ct. 2499 , 177 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) (“The reason for [the GCT-credit scheme] is provided in § 3624(b) itself: to provide an incentive for prisoners to ‘complfy] with institutional disciplinary regulations.’ ” (quoting § 3624(b)(1))). Under the BOP’s method of calculation, Hogge’s conduct during the concurrent portion óf his sentence is immaterial to the length of time he will spend in prison. Instead, the GCT he earned during the concurrent portion of his sentence simply altered the day the BOP retroactively deemed as his sentence-commencement date.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rickman v. Maye
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.