Roller v. Cavanaugh’s Empirical Analysis
984 F.2d 120 · 1993
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably California Department of Corrections v. Morales (1995), Roller v. Gunn (1997)
15 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants ... point out that Roller becomes and remains "eligible" for parole just as he would have under the law in effect when he committed his crimes. The defendants do not, however, identify any benefit flowing from the status of "eligibility” other than the right to be heard and considered for parole. Eligibility without consideration is a cold comfort.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[sjince the [parole board] is required to hold some type of parole reconsideration hearing before granting parole, an inmate is effectively ineligible for parole between two reconsideration hearings. Because an inmate is not paroled without a parole reconsideration hearing, the hearing must be considered an essential part of parole eligibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phelps v. Traughber
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.