Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 F.2d 135 - Landman v. Peyton

Landman v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

370 F.2d 135 · 1966

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 1997
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1997 · most notably Sostre v. McGinnis (1971), Jackson v. Bishop (1968)

37 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

4201966197019801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Robinson v. State of California · Ex parte Hull · Jordan v. Fitzharris · Clarence R. Edwards v. John B. Duncan, D.C. Commissioner

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

  1. ““Superintendent Peyton testified that the guards have blanket authorization to use tear gas against a ‘recalcitrant’ inmate, in addition to employing it in its customary role to prevent riots and escapes. A written report is required only after a tear gas shell is fired. The superintendent also stated that no record is kept of the number of shells issued and no crosscheck is made to determine if reports are filed covering each instance that the gas is employed. By way of contrast, the use of tear gas against a single inmate in a federal prison is permitted only ‘in most extraordinary circumstances and after approval in writing of the warden or superintendent.’ U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons, Use of Tear Gas and Smoke 3 (1949). While it is our belief that the federal practice is the more enlightened, we will not disturb the finding that the use of tear gas revealed in this record did not amount to ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “building are not permitted to work and earn money; they are allowed only two meals a day, and are deprived of radio, television and movie privileges; they do not have access to the library and are not permitted to attend educational classes; they are allowed to bathe only once a week, as opposed to daily bathing allowed other prisoners. It is also highly significant that the Parole Board declines to consider as eligible for parole any prisoner who is confined in [”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Acton’s classic proverb about the corrupting influence of absolute power is true of prison guards no less than of other men. In fact, prison- guards may be more vulnerable to the corrupting influence of unchecked authority than most people. It is well known that prisons are operated on minimum budgets and that poor salaries and working conditions make it difficult to attract high calibre personnel. Moreover, the “training” of the officers in methods of dealing with obstreperous prisoners is but a euphemism in most states.”
    1 later decision 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.