Tinder v. Paula’s Empirical Analysis
725 F.2d 801 · 1984
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Graham v. Johnson (1999), Lefkowitz v. Fair (1987)
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Carafas v. J · Jones v. Cunningham · Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty. · Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Bravman
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.
“probationers are also subject to restraints not shared by the public generally,’ and should therefore be considered 'in custody' for habeas corpus purposes.”). Moreover, even though the petitioner’s term of probation ended in or about June, 1996, he was still on probation when he filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 9, 1996; thus, even though he is not on probation or”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a sentence that has been fully served does not satisfy the custody requirement of the habeas statute, despite the collateral consequences that generally attend a criminal conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“remains attached to a degree sufficient to warrant the exercise of federal habeas jurisdiction even after the expiration of his state sentence, he is whistling past the graveyard. His chief talking point is that the rape conviction led to the revocation of his license to practice medicine. His license remains revoked and, as he sees it, any chance of restoration effectively depends upon having the conviction erased. This concatenation of circumstances, he contends, amounts to a restraint on liberty severe enough to constitute”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Lefkowitz v. Fair
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.