In re Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably Commonwealth Ex Rel. Banks v. Cain (1942), Anderson v. Alexander (1951)
34 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 United States v. George Wilson · Ex Parte: in the Matter of William Wells on a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus · Woodward v. Murdock · Fuller v. State · Alvarez v. State
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . parole such person and permit him to go at large, upon such conditions and under such restrictions as the court or judge granting the parole shall see fit to impose.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The parole granted under this provision is not the vacation of the sentence imposed, nor is it a commutation of the punishment. It suspends the execution of the penalty and temporarily releases the convict from imprisonment upon conditions which he is at' liberty to accept or reject. A parole is granted by the court at its discretion and upon the theory that punishment is not the sole purpose of a prosecution and conviction, but that the reform and improvement' of a prisoner is a matter of great importance.” (In re Patterson, 94 Kan. 439, 442 , 146 Pac. 1009 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re McClane““The statute expressly provides that the court may grant the parole on such conditions and under such restrictions as it may see fit to impose. In its discretion it may attach any conditions to the parole that are not immoral, illegal or impossible of performance. . . . The petitioner was at liberty to accept the parole with the conditions attached or to decline it and serve out the sentence imposed, but when he accepted it he in effect agreed to all the conditions of the parole,” etc. (In re Patterson, 94 Kan. 439, 442, 443 , 146 Pac. 1009 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Harris
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.