Daniel v. Fulwood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “It may be that the factors that led to the Commission to add time to the plaintiffs’ periods of incarceration under the 2000 Guidelines are factors that the D.C. Board of Parole could also have considered under the 1972 Guidelines.... [But] we think it reasonable to infer that the presumption of extended unsuitability contained in the 2000 Guidelines would prolong a prisoner’s period of incarceration as compared to the 1972 Guidelines — in which no such presumption existed — even if the same factors could have been considered under the earlier regime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia · Daniel v. Fulwood

2. “create[ ] a significant risk of prolonging [a prisoner's incarceration] as compared to application of the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. Smoot · Morton v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

3. “indicate that [Plaintiffs] are subject to a long presumptive period of parole unsuitability that would not have applied to them under the 1972 Guidelines.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. Smoot