Ex Parte Canada’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Joseph v. State (1999), Ex Parte Evans (1998)
2 federal appellate · 22 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · North Carolina v. Pearce · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Jones v. Cunningham · United States v. Jackson
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen a person's parole, mandatory supervision, or conditional pardon is revoked, that person may be required to serve the portion remaining of the sentence on which he was released, such portion remaining to be calculated without credit for the time from the date of his release to the date of revocation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Bates · Ex parte Adams““The denial of time credit to the defendant who is appealing his conviction constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to freely exercise his right of appeal. Robinson v. Beto, [ 426 F.2d 797 (5th Cir.1970) ]. Similarly, the discretionary authority to deny time credit to the parolee awaiting revocation constitutes a ‘punitive policy ...,’ Pruett v. Texas, [ 468 F.2d 51 ,] 56 [(5th Cir.1972), aff'd and modified in part, 470 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir.), aff'd, 414 U.S. 802 , 94 S.Ct. 118 , 38 L.Ed.2d 39 (1973) ], that may chill the parolee’s decision to exercise his constitutional right to a pre-revocation hearing. This is so because the parolee who waives his right to a hearing and his parole is revoked will immediately begin to accrue time toward the completion of his sentence. Article 42.18, § 15(a), [Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The State contends that if a parole revocation hearing is required, a parolee can endure a reasonable period of confinement awaiting determination of his delinquency without receiving credit for said period of confinement on his sentence. We agree. This action does not reach Constitutional proportions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Bates
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.