Garcia v. Steele’s Empirical Analysis
193 F.2d 276 · 1951
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 1980 · most notably Jackson v. Bishop (1968), Anderson v. Nosser (1971)
32 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Powell v. Hunter · Jones v. Pescor · Chapman v. Scott · Rosheisen v. Steele
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Congress has confided to the Attorney General and the prison authorities, and not to the courts, the duty and responsibility of determining whether a federal prisoner is a suitable subject for confinement, care and treatment at the Medical Center, and what sort of medical care he needs. The administrative determination of such questions is not, in our opinion, subject to review in habeas corpus proceedings. “It is to be noted that the Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, is not exclusively an institution for the insane or for mentally defective federal prisoners. As the Act providing for it shows, Act of May 13, 1930, 46 Stat. 270 , the institution was to be available to the Attorney General as a hospital for the care and treatment of federal prisoners 'who at the time of their conviction or during the time of their detention and/or confinement are or shall become insane, afflicted with an incurable or chronic degenerative disease, or so defective mentally or physically so [as] to require special medical care and treatment not available in an existing Federal institution.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is our opinion that the authority to classify federal prisoners for the purposes of confinement, care and treatment, has been conferred exclusively upon the Attorney General, and that his determinations, made in the exercise of that authority, are not subject to review in habeas corpus proceedings.” Id. at 278”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A prisoner who has been removed to a hospital for defective delinquents under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4241 is not entitled to have further good conduct accruals made or become operative until, in the judgment of the superintendent of the hospital, he has become restored to sanity or health. If, in the judgment of the superintendent, he does not become so restored, he is entitled to be kept in the hospital, under § 4241, until his maximum sentence has been served. He cannot, in this situation, ordinarily seek his release from the hospital until one or the other of these two contingencies has occurred. “Within the power of Congress to control the care and treatment of all federal prisoners, it necessarily may set up such appropriate administrative machinery for dealing with this problem as it sees fit, without leaving the way open to a prisoner to have the judgment of the official to whom that responsibility has been entrusted subjected to judicial examination, except as some right otherwise of a prisoner may be violated.” (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bush v. Ciccone
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.