Cosgrove v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.2d 1125 · 1983
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. (1986), George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen (1987)
30 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Meachum v. Fano · Morton v. Mancari · Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Board of Parole [now the USPC] created by § 732a of Title 18, United States Code, shall have and exercise the same power and authority over prisoners convicted in the District of Columbia of crimes against the United States or now or hereafter confined in any United States penitentiary or prison (other than the penal institutions of the District of Columbia) as is vested in the District Board of Parole over prisoners confined in the penal institutions of the District of Columbia.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Congress ... enacted [§ 24-209], to ensure that the benefits of penological reform which had been provided for D.C. Code offenders did not vanish when the offenders were committed to federal custody. That the 1932 Act adopted a penal philosophy for the District, and that the 1934 amendment was meant to extend the benefits of that philosophy to D.C. offenders in federal custody, suggest that the amendment should not now be read to allow a different, harsher federal standard to be imposed on D.C. offenders in federal hands.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress therefore enacted the 1934 amendment, to ensure that the benefits of penological reform which had been provided for D.C.Code offenders did not vanish when the offenders were committed to federal custody.”
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.