Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 FSUPP 1182 - Hamilton v. Love

Hamilton v. Love’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
8
states following
August 2004
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably Johnson v. Glick (1973), Gates v. Collier (1974)

39 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 state decisions

8901971198019902000decided

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. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Holt v. Sarver · Holt v. Sarver · James Covington v. David W. Harris · Board of Trustees of Arkansas a & M College, a Body Corporate, and Dr. Homer Babin, President of Arkansas a & M College v. H. Brent Davis · 229 F. Supp. 565 - Butler v. Crumlish

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

  1. “'inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person of his constitutional rights.'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the conditions of pre-trial detention derive from punishment rationales, such as retribution, deterrence, or even involuntary rehabilitation, then those conditions are suspect constitutionally and must fall unless also clearly justified by the limited purpose and objective of pre-trial detention . . . .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““. . . it is manifestly obvious that the conditions of incarceration for detainees must, cumulatively, add up to the least restrictive means of achieving the purpose requiring and justifying the deprivation of liberty”. Hamilton v. Love, 328 F.Supp. 1182, 1192 (E.D.Ark.W.D.1971).”
    2 later decisions 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.