Pisano v. Shillinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 11 state decisions

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

1. “is the concept that the right to review is not precluded unless legislative intent to preclude judicial review is clear and convincing. 835 P.2d at 1139 . As explained by the United States Supreme Court:”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gordon v. State · Albertson's, Inc. v. City of Sheridan

2. “[T]he Board's right to adopt its own procedures simply means that, barring any constitutional limitations, a parolee cannot seek judicial review of the Board's decision upon grounds relating to the conduct of the Board's hearings. However, the fact that the conduct of the hearing is not subject to review does not mean that the decision itself is not subject to review. The conduct of a hearing merely provides the procedural process through which a decision is reached. The Board's final decision is still reviewable by the district court pursuant to § 16-3-114(c), which requires, among other things, that the Board's findings be supported by substantial evidence and that its action not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Accordingly, we hold that the exemption of the Board's hearing procedures from the WAPA does not evidence an intent to preclude judicial review of the Board's revocation decisions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gordon v. State

3. “It naturally follows that, if we require clear evidence of legislative intent to restrict review, "the mere failure to provide specially by statute for judicial review is certainly no evidence of intent to withhold review." Keslar [ v. Police Civil Service Comm'n, City of Rock Springs ], 665 P.2d [937,] 942 [ (Wyo. 1983) ] (quoting Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp , 397 U.S. 150 , 157, 90 S.Ct. 827 , 831, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970) ). Statutory silence regarding judicial review constitutes neither a persuasive reason nor a manifestation of legislative intent to prohibit review. Consequently, we do not interpret § 7-13-402(f)'s silence on judicial review as being an indication of legislative intent to preclude review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gordon v. State