Green v. McCall’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.2d 284 · 1987
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably King v. Simpson (1999), Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh (1990)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]ince * * * inmates for whom no parole date had been set could have some protectable interest, we are hard pressed to believe that th[e] Court would not also find that a protectable interest is possessed by an inmate whose release date has already been set and is less than six months away”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Given both the factual differences between Greenholtz and Drayton and the Greenholtz Court’s analytical framework, we think Greenholtz supports, rather than undermines, Drayton’s conclusion that parole grantees have a protectable liberty interest. First, though the liberty interest of a federal parole grantee is not as substantial as that of a parolee, it is far more substantial than that of the Greenholtz prisoners. We perceive a continuum that includes the liberty interests attributable to, in descending order, the parolee, the parole grantee, and the inmate without a parole date (“non grantee”). Since the Greenholtz Court, and more recently the Court in Board of Pardons v. Allen, accepted the proposition that inmates for whom no parole date had been set could have some protectable interest, we are hard pressed to believe that that Court would not also find that a protectable interest is possessed by an inmate whose release date has already been set and is less than six months away.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Though the regulations in effect when Drayton was decided have since been modified, the pertinent changes have not been substantial. The Commission’s rescission authority remains limited, as 28 C.F.R. § 2.34 (a) (1986) provides that the Commission may reconsider the parole grantee’s early release date if the parole grantee has been found to have violated institutional rules or is alleged to have committed a new criminal act____ Thus, unless Dray-ton has been undermined by later eases, its ruling that a parole grantee is entitled to due process in a rescission hearing remains the law of this Circuit.”
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.