Levier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

87 state decisions

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

1. ““It should also be emphasized that prison officials as executive officers of the state are charged with the control and administration of the penal institutions of the state and as such are vested with wide discretion in the discharge of their duties. Under familiar rules, that discretion should not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of abuse or unless exercised unlawfully, arbitrarily or capriciously. Maintenance and administration of penal institutions are executive functions and it has been said that before courts will interfere the institutional treatment must be of such a nature as to clearly infringe upon constitutional rights, be of such character or consequence as to shock general conscience or be intolerable in fundamental fairness. It has further been said that the ‘hands-off’ doctrine operates reasonably to the extent it prevents judicial review of deprivations which are necessary or reasonable concomitants of imprisonment. ... In other words, disciplinary measures properly administered in accord with reasonable prison regulations are not subject to judicial review.” 209 Kan. at 450-51 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 23 Kan. App. 2d 803 - Anderson v. McKune · 10 Kan. App. 2d 79 - Williams v. Maschner

2. ““As indicated, we have examined the regulations prescribed by the director of penal institutions respecting grievances and must conclude they are so vague and ambiguous as to be inadequate for their intended purpose. Appellants here have alleged they have unsuccessfully sought relief at the prison under those regulations. Counsel for appellees have suggested nothing by way of administrative action in response to the complaints made. Until such time as adequate administrative provision is made for an impartial resolution of factual issues underlying such complaints there is no alternative to judicial inquiry respecting the facts rather than limiting judicial review of administrative actions to its ordinary scope. When appropriate administrative procedures have been established then those remedies will be required to have been exhausted prior to resort to the courts.” (p. 452.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Battrick v. State · Case v. Crouse

3. ““[Disputed issues of fact respecting mistreatment of inmates should be determined administratively in a grievance procedure wherein the inmate is afforded the basic elements of due process . . . .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 49 Kan. App. 2d 732 - Stanley v. Sullivan · 10 Kan. App. 2d 79 - Williams v. Maschner