Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 760 F.2d 217 - Burnside v. White

Burnside v. White’s Empirical Analysis

760 F.2d 217 · 1985

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
5
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Gluckstern v. Sutton (1990), Prater v. U.S. Parole Commission (1986)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

2101985199020002010decided

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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Rose v. Lundy · William Marbury v. James Madison · Weaver v. Graham · United States v. Security Industrial Bank

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

  1. “When in its opinion there is reasonable probability that an inmate of a state correctional institution can be released without detriment to the community or to himself, the board may in its discretion release or parole such person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]here is no question that a new parole statute may alter the consequences attached to a crime for which a prisoner already has been sentenced ... [and] to the degree that a statute does so, it has retrospective effect”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “While a plaintiff in a § 1983 action may, in a proper case, be bound by a determination on the merits by another court, a decision in another case is not res judicata as to a habeas proceeding.”
    1 later decision 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.