Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 352 F.2d 970 - John Alfred Lee v. Ralph H. Tahash, Warden

John Alfred Lee v. Ralph H. Tahash, Warden’s Empirical Analysis

352 F.2d 970 · 1965

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2009 · most notably Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey (1996), Procunier v. Martinez (1974)

50 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions

70019651970198019902000decided

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

Relies on Cooper v. Pate · Ex parte Hull · Mark O. Hatfield, Governor of the State of Oregon v. Paul R. Bailleaux · Sostre v. McGinnis

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

  1. “. the fact that prison authorities, whether federal or state, have refused to allow mailing of some particular letter or letters or to some particular person or persons does not of itself afford basis for a prisoner to try to get into the federal courts. Nor will the fact that particular refusals seem to him to constitute improper interpretation of the prison regulations, or erroneous judgment on the letters themselves, or different treatment in relation to them than he feels has occurred as to some other prisoner or prisoners, of itself give rise to any justiciability. Whether improper interpretation, erroneous judgment, or variant administration may be involved in the restriction of some particular correspondence is, without more, mere institutional incident and not matter of judicial domain.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"`Such treatment is entitled to be held to be within the ban of the Eighth Amendment as representing cruel and unusual punishment and so constituting unlawful administration of prison sentence. It may be observed in this connection that penal admeasurements made by general conscience and sense of fundamental fairness doubtless will not be without some relationship to the humane concepts and reactions of present-day social climate.' Lee v. Tahash, supra, 352 F.2d at 972 ."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[p]rison regulations are not required to provide prisoners with the time, the correspondence privileges, the materials or other facilities they desire for the special purpose of trying to find some way of making attack upon the presumptively valid judgments against them.”
    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.