Aubrey L. Schwartz v. Raymond M. Muncy, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
834 F.2d 396 · 1987
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Jones v. Murray (1992), Gluckstern v. Sutton (1990)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Weaver v. Graham · Miller v. Florida · Sloan v. Hicks · Ford v. Wainwright · Warden Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“parole eligibility is part of the law annexed to the crime at the time of a person's offense”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The acts leading to Schwartz’ 1978 conviction of course occurred prior to the 1979 change of the Virginia parole eligibility statute. Accordingly, the fixing of his parole eligibility date, which was part of his punishment, could not constitutionally be made “greater or more severe.” Yet, if the new Virginia statute were applied to Schwartz, that is precisely what would occur. His parole eligibility will mature at a later date under the 1979 statute than it would have under the statute in place at the time of his 1978 conviction and the acts causing the 1978 conviction. It is, therefore, the old Virginia statute ... that should be applied in determining Schwartz’ parole eligibility so far as his 1978 sentence is concerned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fender v. Thompson
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.