McDonnell v. Wolff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate ·

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

1. “The Court should first examine the inmate assistance program whereby the Complex provides for the use of the inmate legal assistant. This procedure must satisfy the test of Johnson v. Avery, * * *. Here, the Complex allows for inmates to assist each other upon permission of the Warden. Assuming such permission is freely given, then it is certainly arguable that no Johnson v. Avery, supra, problem is presented, since the procedure and the alternative both are allowed. But at least it should seem evident, and the Court so finds, that such a regulation in conjunction with the comprehensive program of inmate legal assistance afforded by the Complex satisfies the reasonable alternative requirements of Johnson v. Avery, supra. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robert O. McDonnell Etc. v. Charles L. Wolff, Jr., Etc., Robert O. McDonnell Etc. v. Charles L. Wolff, Jr., Etc.

2. “* * * that, regarding censorship of mail between inmates and their attorneys or the Courts, outgoing mail may not be inspected or opened; incoming mail may be opened only if manipulation of the envelope, use of fluoroscopes and metal detectors or other alternate means to opening the envelopes fail to disclose contraband and there is a real possibility that contraband will be included in such mail; in addition, if the envelope from the attorney or Court is marked 'Privileged', it cannot be opened except in the presence of the inmate addressee * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robert O. McDonnell Etc. v. Charles L. Wolff, Jr., Etc., Robert O. McDonnell Etc. v. Charles L. Wolff, Jr., Etc.

3. “Courts have begun in recent years to recognize that fundamental due process is a right of all persons, including inmates, and have specifically held that before good time or other substantial rights may be taken there must be an impartial tribunal, notice, a hearing, a right to cross-examination of adverse witnesses, that the decision be based upon evidence adduced at the hearing, and that the inmate be allowed representation if he so desires. See, e. g., Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621 (E.D.Va.1971). 6”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robert O. McDonnell Etc. v. Charles L. Wolff, Jr., Etc., Robert O. McDonnell Etc. v. Charles L. Wolff, Jr., Etc.