Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 F. Supp. 2d 113 - Maddox v. Elize

83 F. Supp. 2d 113 - Maddox v. Elize’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
January 2001
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 547

Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Faretta v. California · North Carolina v. Pearce · Blackledge v. Perry · United States v. Jamison

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

  1. “[o]nce [the United States] takes on the role of prosecuting parole violation cases after a jury has acquittedthe defendant, it opens itself up to the charge of vindictiveness.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 108 F. Supp. 2d 191 - United States v. Rosenberg · Edward Maddox, v. Michelle Elzie, et al.
  2. “did not act alone ... [inasmuch as] his actions were approved by three superiors in the United States Attorney's office.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. United States v. Maddox · Edward Maddox, v. Michelle Elzie, et al.
  3. “[i]f Maddox were a danger to society, then the Parole Board should have taken action during the five months subsequent to Maddox's release after his first trial,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Edward Maddox, v. Michelle Elzie, et al.

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.