Lewis v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
880 F.2d 288 · 1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2012
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 3551 (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. · Hackett v. United States Parole Commission · Romano v. Luther · Lightsey v. Kastner
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“set a release date, for an individual who will be in its jurisdiction the day before the expiration of five years after [November 1, 1987], that is within the range that applies to the prisoner under the applicable parole guideline.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The premise of Romano's argument is that Congress was so dissatisfied with the practice of the Parole Commission of setting release dates for some prisoners beyond their applicable guideline ranges that it enacted subsection 235(b)(3) to stop that practice and to require the Commission to set release dates within the applicable guideline range for a large group of prisoners— all those whose maximum sentences continue beyond the day before the transition period ends and the Commission is abolished. Though Congress expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission’s use of its parole guideline system, see Senate Report at 53-56, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3236-39, its remedy was to replace the parole system with the new system of determinate sentencing without parole, not to require a large number of prisoners sentenced under the current system to be released within their applicable parole guideline ranges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a “winding-up” provision to ensure that the Parole Commission will set release dates for all prisoners sentenced under the old statutes before it goes out of business on November 1, 1992. See id. at 839-40. The subsection does not require the Commission to take immediate action on the release date of any prisoner. Rather, by its own terms, the subsection requires the Commission to set a release date for any prisoner within its jurisdiction sufficiently before November 1, 1992, to allow him time to appeal the decision.”
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.