Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 SO3D 3 - Ex Parte Hill

Ex Parte Hill’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Armstrong v. State · 680 So. 2d 980 - Puckett v. State · 493 So. 2d 1362 - Ex Parte Otinger

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

  1. ““The trial judge in the instant case revoked Hill’s community-corrections assignment during Hill’s initial appearance, without affording Hill a meaningful hearing to be set at a later date. As a result, Hill was not afforded the opportunity to present witnesses, nor was he afforded the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Accordingly, the minimum due-process requirements of Morrissey [v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) ], Gagnon [v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)], and Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975)], were not met. “Based on the foregoing, we reverse that portion of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision holding that Hill failed to preserve for appellate review the issue whether due process was afforded at the revocation hearing, and we remand this case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.