Anderson v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis
714 F.2d 906 · 1983
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably 118 Wash. 2d 195 - Taggart v. State (1992), Trotter v. Klincar (1984)
38 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Morrissey v. Brewer · Haines v. Kerner · Butz v. Economou · California ex rel. State Lands Commission v. United States
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.
““We believe that parole board officials perform functionally comparable tasks to judges when they decide to grant, deny, or revoke parole. The daily task of both judges and parole board officials is the adjudication of specific cases or controversies. Their duty is often the same: to render impartial decisions in cases and controversies that excite strong feelings because the litigant’s liberty is at stake. They face the same risk of constant unfounded suits by those disappointed by the parole board’s decisions. “We believe that the same degree of protection [given to the judicial decision-making process] must be accorded to the decision-making process of parole board officials. Just as the decision-making process of judges must be kept free from fear, so must that of parole board officials. Without this protection, there is the same danger that the decision-maker might not impartially adjudicate the often difficult cases that come before them. If parole board officials had to anticipate that each time they rejected a prisoner’s application for parole, they would have to defend that decision in federal court, their already difficult task of balancing the risk involved in releasing a prisoner whose rehabilitation is uncertain against the public’s right to safety would become almost impossible. Furthermore, time spent in depositions and on the witness stand defending their actions would leave these overburdened public servants with even less time to perform their crucial tasks.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An official derives the appropriate degree of immunity not from his or her administrative designation, but by the function he or she performs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Stoffel“execution of parole revocation procedures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Trotter v. Klincar
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.