Snyder v. Sumner’s Empirical Analysis
960 F.2d 1448 · 1992
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably United States v. Collins (1996), Brown v. Maass (1993)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Sumner v. Mata · Rideout v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Sloan v. Hicks
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, [a detainer] may make the prisoner ineligible for desirable work or educational assignments. If the prisoner is constantly shuttled from one facility to another, prison officials may be reluctant to permit him to participate in rehabilitation programs. Second, a detainer reduces the prisoner’s incentive to participate in work, education, and other programs that help rehabilitate him and improve his chances for early parole____Third, a detainer tells the prisoner that he may have to stand trial elsewhere, but does not provide him with a vehicle for going there immediately to secure witnesses and take other steps to preserve his defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Birth v. Crabtree“[W]e hold that the parole status of a prisoner, after he [or she] is sent to the receiving state, does not affect the applicability of the [IAD] .... We hold that once the defendant has been received by the receiving state, the . . . clock starts to run and cannot be turned off by a grant of parole by the sending state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The issue here is whether the [IAD] continues to apply to a prisoner when he or she is paroled from the sending state while awaiting trial in the receiving state.”
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.