Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 962 F.2d 358 - Thomas v. Whalen

Thomas v. Whalen’s Empirical Analysis

962 F.2d 358 · 1992

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
5
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Maryland Department of Human Resources v. United States Department of Agriculture (1992), United States v. Evans (1998)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions

3301992200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3585 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. Mauro · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · White v. United States · City of Long Beach v. Southwest Aircraft Services, Inc.

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Contrary to appellant’s line of case law ... we are not dealing with a situation where both sentences were imposed by the same court to be served in the same institution. Here, we have a situation where different courts have sentenced appellant for different offenses to be served at separate and distinct institutions. In this situation, absent any written indication to the contrary, it is presumed that the sentences are to run consecutively.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A federal court, whether in law or in equity, has no authority to depart from the clear command of a statute in order to effect a result that it believes to be ... dictated by general principles of fairness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory or jail for service of such sentence.”
    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.