Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 FSUPP 177 - Silver v. Dunbar

Silver v. Dunbar’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
December 1981
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1981

30196719701980decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Price v. Johnston · Ahrens v. Clark · Carbo v. United States · Paul Rodger Weller v. Fred H. Dickson, Andrew Emmitte Pope v. Richard A. McGee · Slochower v. Board of Higher Education

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

  1. “Here it would be both expensive and inconvenient to have petitioner present in the courtroom. It would be necessary to transport petitioner several hundreds of miles from Deuel Vocational Institution and back again. Arrangements would have to be made for custody in local jail facilities. Guards would be required both during transportation and during courtroom appearances. The costs of these arrangements could be substantial, and they would not appear to be properly chargeable against either the United States or the State of California [here Georgia], because petitioner’s actions are civil in nature. Moreover, petitioner’s appearance in the courtroom could be potentially dangerous. He is the man who is presently imprisoned under convictions for attempted murder and escape from prison. His presence in the courtroom could be a danger both to persons present in the courtroom and to the public at large. These factors would be sufficient to warrant denial of a writ even in a case involving the life and liberty of the petitioner. They present even stronger reasons for denial where, as here, the petitioner seeks a writ for the purpose of prosecuting and testifying in a civil action for damages.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.