Evans v. Holm’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1913 · 28 U.S.C. § 1914 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1917 · 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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Sandin v. Conner · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Hewitt v. Helms
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The sense of this entire body of case-law is that a prisoner simply has no right to complain if the state decides to house him outside its borders, or even if he is actually transferred between various jurisdictions, each of which has convicted him. Only when a prisoner is released for some time through no fault of his own has there ever even been a question raised about a possible due process violation. In this case, Evans has no such claim. He clearly has not been released. Equally clearly, he has not even been transferred to the custody of another sovereign. The State of Wisconsin has simply contracted to house him outside its boundaries.”
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.