Fender v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 303 · 1989
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al. v. Dotson et al. (2005), Jones v. Murray (1992)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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
Relies on Weaver v. Graham · Dobbert v. Florida · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Cummings v. The State of Missouri · 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“); Shepard v. Taylor, 556 F.2d 648 , 654 (2d Cir.1977) (”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The principle underlying each of these decisions is that the retrospective application of a statute modifying or revoking parole eligibility would, ‘[f]or prisoners who committed crimes before [the statute’s] enactment ..., substantially alter[ ] the consequences attached to a crime already completed, and therefore change[ ] “the quantum of punishment.” ’ Weaver, 450 U.S. at 33 , 101 S.Ct. at 966 -67 (citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293-94 , 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2298-99 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977)). That is, of course, what the statute as applied here effectively accomplishes. It is also, however, precisely what the ex post facto clause forbids.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a repealer of parole eligibility previously available to imprisoned offenders would clearly present the serious question under the ex post facto clause ... of whether it imposed a 'greater or more severe punishment than was prescribed by law at the time of the offense.' " Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 , 663, 94 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 41 L.Ed.2d 383 (1974) (quoting Rooney v. North Dakota, 196 U.S. 319 , 325, 25 S.Ct. 264, 265, 49 L.Ed. 494 (1905)) (emphasis in original). As the Court explained, "only an unusual prisoner could be expected to think that he was not suffering a penalty when he was denied eligibility for parole.”
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.