Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 827 So. 2d 967 - Mayes v. Moore

827 So. 2d 967 - Mayes v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Marks v. United States · Oyler v. Boles · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Fletcher v. Peck · Rogers v. Tennessee

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

  1. “Because conditional release does not impose an enhanced criminal penalty or sentence, no actual notice of an offender's eligibility for this program is required ....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “However, the “posting date” is not at all the relevant date for our consideration. The conditional release statute specifically provides for forfeiture of all gain time “earned up to the date of release.” Although petitioners’ 800 days of provisional credits were posted in 2000, they were earned in the mid 1990s, on the Department’s “accrued” date. Accordingly, the “accrued date” and not the “posting date” is the relevant date we must consider when determining whether late-awarded gain time may be forfeited. To do otherwise would result in inmates such as these petitioners receiving Gomez credits but not forfeiting them for a conditional release violation, while another inmate who received Gomez credits before being released on conditional release would forfeit the credits for a later violation. Because we find that petitioners’ provisional credits were properly forfeited, they are not entitled to relief on this issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In other words the Department records the gain time as if it had been awarded at the appropriate time in the past. When the Department does this, it refers to the date when the gain time should have been awarded as the “accrued date.” The date on which a data entry employee enters the gain time award into the computer and credits it to the inmate’s “account” or record is called the “posting date.””
    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.