Monroe v. Thigpen’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Johnson v. Rodriguez (1997), State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Furman v. Georgia · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Mansell v. Mansell · Colony Square Co. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · Brown v. 1250 Twenty-Fourth Street Associates Ltd. Partnership
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is true that the Alabama parole statute is framed in discretionary terms and therefore does not confer a liberty interest in parole. Ala.Code § 15-22-26 (1975); Thomas, 691 F.2d at 489 . Nevertheless, this discretion is not unlimited. A parole board may not engage in `flagrant or unauthorized action.' Thomas, 691 F.2d at 489 .10 Section 15-22-26 cannot be read as granting the Board the discretion to rely upon false information in determining whether to grant parole. Therefore, by relying on the false information in Monroe's file, the Board has exceeded its authority under section 15-22-26 and treated Monroe arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of due process. Thomas, 691 F.2d at 489 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[T]he classification scheme adopted by the Alabama prison system to determine the custody status of prisoners”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“" 'In Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex , 442 U.S. 1 , 7 [ 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 2104 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 ] . . . (1979), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a liberty interest in parole. The Court also determined, however, that states may confer such a liberty interest in parole under state law. Id. at 12 [ 99 S.Ct. at 2106 ]. . . . When a state statute, practice, or regulation provides for an expectancy of parole and limits official discretion to deny parole, then a liberty interest in parole is created. Id. Applying Greenholtz , we have previously determined that the Alabama parole statute, Ala. Code § 15-22-26 (1975), does not confer a liberty interest in parole that is protected by the Due Process Clause because the statute provides that parole may be granted at the Board's discretion. Thomas v. Sellers , 691 F.2d 487 , 488-89 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Accordingly, we noted that federal courts should not interfere with the discretionary decisions of the Board "absent flagrant or unauthorized action" by the Board. Id. at 489 . We have also held that the classification scheme adopted by the Alabama prison system to determine the custody status of prisoners "is not arbitrary and capricious, but reasonable and appropriate." Hendking v. Smith , 781 F.2d 850 , 852 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that regulation denying sex offenders minimum security status does not violate the Equal Protection Clause). In addition, we have stat”
2 later decisions 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.