Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 862 F.2d 250 - Vasquez v. Cooper

Vasquez v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

862 F.2d 250 · 1988

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably United States v. Hahn (2004), Aycox v. Lytle (1999)

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

1901988199020002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Salerno · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Douglas v. People of State of California

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

  1. “Unless it provokes strict judicial scrutiny, a state practice that distinguishes among classes of people will typically survive an equal protection attack so long as the challenged classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “may implicate constitutional concerns, the period of incarceration within that time is necessarily discretionary with the sentencing judge.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “the total time during which liberty would be deprived ... is specifically considered by the judge. Requiring the judge to determine the sentence necessary to serve the state’s penological interests by disregarding the time previously served by the defendant, and then mechanically subtracting that time from the sentence given, would be an artificial and meaningless exercise.”
    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.