Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 F.2d 755 - Harris v. Day

Harris v. Day’s Empirical Analysis

649 F.2d 755 · 1981

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
3
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Sutherland v. McCall (1983), Heath v. United States Parole Commission (1986)

42 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

3401981199020002010decided

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 5 U.S.C. § 555 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)

Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Stovall v. Denno · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · McCarthy 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the Commission shall determine ... whether all or any part of the unexpired term being served at the time of parole shall run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence imposed for the new offense.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the unexpired term remaining to be served by the defendant at the time the defendant was paroled. The statute does not say that the measure of time remaining on the defendant's original sentence is the time remaining to be served on that sentence at the time of defendant's arrest for the second crime.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(2) If the parolee has been convicted of a new offense committed subsequent to his release of (sic) parole, which is punishable by a term of imprisonment, forfeiture of the time from the date of such release to the date of execution of the warrant shall be ordered and such time shall not be credited to service of the sentence. An actual term of confinement of imprisonment need not have been imposed for such conviction, it suffices that the statute under which the parolee was convicted permits the trial court to impose any term of confinement or imprisonment in any penal facility.”
    2 later decisions 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.