Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 772 P2D 552 - Loper v. Shillinger

Loper v. Shillinger’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
September 2009
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2009

8 state decisions

40198919902000decided

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 Burns v. United States · Zerbst v. Kidwell · United States v. Daugherty · Central Railroad v. Pennsylvania · United States v. Villano

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

  1. “We decline to adopt the presumption advanced by petitioner. The sentencing judge has discretion to determine whether sentences shall be served consecutively or concurrently. Eaton v. State, 660 P.2d 803 (Wyo.1983). Here, the sentencing judge was aware that petitioner was on parole at the time he was sentenced. Petitioner was advised that his guilty plea could result in revocation of parole. The judge did not specify that the four concurrent sentences would run concurrently with the remainder of his original sentence in the event that parole was revoked.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Parole is intended to be a means of restoring offenders who are good social risks to society; to afford the unfortunate another opportunity by clemency-under guidance and control of the [parole] Board. Unless a parole violator can be required to serve some time in prison in addition to that imposed for an offense committed while on parole, he not only escapes punishment for the unexpired portion of his original sentence, but the disciplinary power of the Board will be practically nullified. 304 U.S. at 863 , 58 S.Ct. at 874 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “one who uses release on parole as an opportunity to commit further crimes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.