MacK v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 633 So. 2d 978 - Puckett v. Stuckey · 546 So. 2d 972 - Melody Manor Conval. Center v. State Dept. of Health · Stewart v. Walls · 679 So. 2d 205 - Vice v. State · 863 So. 2d 917 - Cotton v. Mississippi Parole Bd.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A circuit court has no authority to judicially create a right of appeal from an administrative agency in the absence of clear statutory authority therefore.” Since Title 47, Chapter 7 does not contain a statutory mandate granting circuit courts jurisdiction over appeals concerning the denial of parole, the circuit court was correct in dismissing the petition due, in part, to lack of jurisdiction. Cotton v. Miss. Parole Bd., 863 So.2d 917, 921 (¶ 10) (Miss.2003) (citations omitted). The Mississippi Supreme Court went on in Cotton to recognize that “a constitutional challenge can justify the assertion of jurisdiction.” Id. at 921 (¶ 11). However, here, as in Cotton , the complaint fails to allege a constitutional violation sufficient to create jurisdiction in the circuit court. As explained in Vice v. State, 679 So.2d 205, 208 (Miss.1996) (citations omitted): The United States Supreme Court held that while maintenance of a parole system does not, in and of itself, create a protected interest in parole, one exists only where mandatory language creates a presumption of entitlement to parole once certain objective criteria are met. However, because the Mississippi parole statutes contain no such mandatory language, employing the permissive “may” rather than “shall,” prisoners have “no constitutionally recognized liberty interest” in parole. Therefore, the Parole Board’s determination did not violate one of [Jerry Lee] Mack’s vested constitutional interests. As noted in Cotton , “”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.