363 F. Supp. 194 - Holt v. Hutto’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1994 · most notably Hutto v. Finney (1979), Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correction (1974)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 Lee v. Washington · Holt v. Sarver · Holt v. Sarver · Burns v. Swenson · John Alfred Lee v. Ralph H. Tahash, Warden
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court finds that as of now the populations of both institutions are fully desegregated, except that inmates of the maximum security unit at Cummins are still assigned to racially segregated cells. Desegregation of the barracks has been accomplished without the creation of any problems in the areas of security and discipline, and the Court cannot accept the argument put forward by respondents that members of both races cannot dwell peaceably together in the cells in the maximum security unit. And it should be pointed out in this connection that not all of the inmates of the unit have been put there for disciplinary reasons. This is not to say, of course, that there may not be some inmates, whether white or black, who cannot safely be confined in a cell with a member or members of the other race. In such cases the Constitution does not require assignment to integrated cells .. . But the existing general policy of racial segregation in the maximum security cells cannot be approved and must be brought to an end. Respondents will be directed forthwith to consider the situations of all inmates now in the unit and determine on an individual basis which of those inmates, if any, cannot safely be put in a cell with a member of the other race. The rest of the inmates presently confined in the unit are to be assigned to cells on a non-racial basis. No present or future inmate of the unit is to be assigned to a cell on the basis of race unless the Superintendent of the institution pe”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE HEARINGS “A. Each unit of the Department shall establish and designate a Disciplinary Committee to hear and dispose of any and all infractions of the institutional rules and regulations. “B. The Superintendent of each unit shall designate the members of the Disciplinary Committee, and may alternate the two members from the security and treatment staff among staff personnel from time to time as he deems appropriate. “C. The Disciplinary Committee shall meet as often as necessary at a place and time convenient to administer the institutional disciplinary functions within seventy-two (72) hours after the occurrence of the disciplinary episode, except that in exceptional instances the Superintendent may grant limited extensions of time. The seventy-two (72) hours will be deemed to be exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and official state holidays. The inmate will be given a written copy of charges against him at least 24 hours prior to the disciplinary hearing and the inmate may call witnesses by giving their names to the notifying officer at that time. “D. Upon convening to consider cases of inmate.violations of rules and regulations, the Disciplinary Committee will cause the inmate charged to appear before it and he will be afforded an opportunity to present his version of the alleged violation. “E. The Disciplinary Committee may summon any and all additional witnesses that may be necessary in carrying out its function. Witnesses’ statements may be taken in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It has long been prison policy to prohibit inmates from having in their possession what is called “free world” or “green” money. The reasons for the prohibition are obvious. An inmate with currency in his possession may be the subject of attack by other inmates; an inmate with funds is in a better position to escape than an inmate who has no money; the money in the possession of an inmate may be used to bribe guards or other prison employees.”
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.