Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 691 F.2d 487 - Thomas v. Sellers

Thomas v. Sellers’s Empirical Analysis

691 F.2d 487 · 1982

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Board of Pardons v. Allen (1987), Monroe v. Thigpen (1991)

13 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

1101982199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat · Scarpa v. U. S. Board of Parole · Tarlton v. Clark · Williams v. Briscoe

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

  1. “"The Alabama statute like the Texas statute calls for discretionary rather than mandatory action on the part of the board. The law directs the board to consider a number of factors in making their determination, which is a subjective rather than objective determination. It does not contain any language that mandates parole as was found in Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979)].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"We have stressed in the past that absent flagrant or unauthorized action by a parole board the discretionary power vested in a parole board will not be interfered with by the Federal courts. "”
    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.