Rizzo v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis
912 F.2d 1111 · 1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Dobbert v. Florida · Miller v. Florida · Garber v. United States · Lindsey v. State of Washington · Wallace v. Christensen
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If revocation is ordered, the Commission will also determine whether to reparole you or to require service of all or any part of your violator term.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rizzo v. Armstrong“) petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the United States Parole Commission (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rizzo v. Armstrong“to consider forfeiture of street time spent on parole from October 29, 1974 to January 28, 1977.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rizzo v. Armstrong
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.