Sostre v. Rockefeller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 16 district · 5 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1) written notice of the charges against him (in advance of a hearing) which designated the prison rule violated; 2) a hearing before an impartial official at which he had the right to cross-examine his accuser and call witnesses in rebuttal; 3) a written record of the hearing, decision, reason therefor and evidence relied upon; and 4) retain counsel or counsel substitute.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 358 F. Supp. 939 - United States Ex Rel. Jones v. Rundle · 334 F. Supp. 161 - Urbano v. McCorkle

2. ““The Attorney General alleges that ‘prisoners would be able to carry on unauthorized activities through communications from prisoners to their attorneys and thence to third parties.’ Uncensored communications, however, presently occur on personal visits to the prison by the prisoner’s attorney and members of his family, without any apparent undermining of prison discipline. In any event, the right of a prisoner to unexpurgated communications with his attorney is so significant that it outweighs the danger of frustration of prison rules regarding outside activities in the rare case where an attorney — an officer of the court — would assist a prisoner in avoiding legitimate prison regulations.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Palmigiano v. Travisono

3. ““(I)f it can be said that Congress has not provided a ... remedy against state officials in their official capacities under Section 1983; and further, that there is no other federal remedy because Monroe v. Pape ( 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961)), left the question open, or because of the Eleventh Amendment, then this court looks to (Connecticut’s) . . . remedy ... as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , 1 to fill this deficiency in federal law.” Sostre v. Rockefeller, 312 F.Supp. 863, 886-887 (S.D.N.Y.1970) (footnote omitted), modified on other grounds sub nom. Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1971).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perkins v. Salafia