Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 780 F.2d 848 - Minor Michael Still v. United States Marshal, United States Parole Commission and Denver Sheriff's Department

Minor Michael Still v. United States Marshal, United States Parole Commission and Denver Sheriff's Department’s Empirical Analysis

780 F.2d 848 · 1985

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2014

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

1301985199020002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 658 (§ 9 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970)

Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Crowell v. Benson · Patterson v. United States · Moody v. Daggett · National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop

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

  1. “By conducting a parole revocation hearing early in the new sentence, the Commission retains the option to run the original sentence concurrent with the new sentence and the parolee is spared the unnecessary complications of an unresolved parole detainer pending throughout the service of his new sentence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because of the comprehensiveness of the Act's procedural requirements,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) If any parolee is alleged to have violated his parole, the Commission may— (2) issue a warrant and retake the parolee as provided in this section. (b) Any ... warrant issued under this section shall be issued by the Commission as soon as practicable after discovery of the alleged violation,- except when delay is deemed necessary. Imprisonment in an institution shall not be deemed grounds for delay of such issuance, except that, in the case of any parolee charged with a criminal offense, issuance of a summons or warrant may be suspended pending disposition of the charge.”
    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.