Ford v. Massarone’s Empirical Analysis
902 F.3d 309 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on United States v. Ursery · Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al. v. Dotson et al. · Johnson v. United States · Garner v. Jones · Nelson v. Campbell Commissioner Alabama Department of Corrections et al.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]arole authorities violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when (i) they apply parole guidelines promulgated after an offender was convicted, and (ii) that retroactive application ... creates a significant risk of prolonging [the offender's] incarceration as compared to application of the prior guidelines.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Parole authorities deprive an offender of due process only if their decisions are 'either totally lacking in evidentiary support or [are] so irrational as to be fundamentally unfair.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“depart from [the guidelines'] numerical system anytime it wishes, as long as it specifies in writing those factors which it used.”
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.