Welsh v. Mizell’s Empirical Analysis
668 F.2d 328 · 1982
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Weaver v. Graham · Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield · Lindsey v. State of Washington · Warden Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) there is substantial risk that [the prisoner] will not conform to reasonable conditions of parole; or (2) his release at that time would deprecate the seriousness of his offense or promote disrespect for the law; or (3) his release would have a substantially adverse effect on institutional discipline. Ill.Rev.Stat. 1973 ch. 38 § 1003-3-5(c).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“facts or circumstances which may tend to throw light on the question as to whether such prisoner ... is capable again of becoming a law-abiding citizen.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Criteria (1) and (3) invite the Parole Board to look at many of the same factors as under previous law. Criterion (2), however, is a marked departure, importing for the first time into the parole decision considerations of retributive justice (the relationship between time served and the nature of the offense) and general deterrence (incarceration as a means of promoting general respect for the law). Furthermore, the statute allows any one of the criteria to serve as a basis for parole denial. Not only is criterion (2) new, therefore, but it can also be determinative. The district court failed to recognize that Welsh’s petition presented exactly that case: the Parole Board gave only the second of the three factors as its reason for denying parole, and that factor could not have had decisive weight under the Board’s 1962 procedures.””
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.