Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 662 F.2d 522 - Evans v. Dillahunty

Evans v. Dillahunty’s Empirical Analysis

662 F.2d 522 · 1981

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Roberts v. Corrothers (1987), Solomon v. Elsea (1982)

17 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

2801981199020002010decided

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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Paul v. Davis · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Meachum v. Fano · Gomez v. Toledo

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) There is a substantial risk that he will not conform to the conditions of parole; (b) His release would depreciate the seriousness of his crime or promote disrespect for law; (c) His release would have a substantially adverse effect on institutional discipline; or (d) His continued correctional treatment, medical care, or vocational or other training in the facility will substantially enhance his capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If an eligible prisoner has substantially observed the rules of the institution * * and if the Commission * * * determines: (1) that release would not depreciate the seriousness of his offense or promote disrespect for the law; and (2) that release would not jeopardize the public welfare; [then] subject to the * * guidelines promulgated by the Commission * * *, such prisoner shall be released.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “that the Missouri law providing that when the statutory and regulatory guidelines are met the inmate shall be released on parole gives rise to the same protectible entitlement as the Nebraska scheme providing that the prisoner shall be paroled unless certain findings are made.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.