Craig v. Hocker’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 1995 · most notably Twyman v. Crisp (1978), 437 F. Supp. 269 - Laaman v. Helgemoe (1977)
8 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Furman v. Georgia · Preiser v. Rodriguez
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Persons confined in prison have the ■right to due process in prison disciplinary [sic] guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the ■ United States made applicable to the State through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee a person the right to representation of an attorney in a prison disciplinary hearing, this court has previously determined that prisoners confined in the Nevada State Prison are entitled to the representation of an attorney in a prison disciplinary hearing involving a violation of prison rules which may also be punishable by state authorities, provided the attorney is retained by the prisoner. The decision of this court that prisoners confined in the Nevada State Prison are entitled to the representation of an attorney in a prison disciplinary hearing involving a violation of prison rules which may also be punishable by state authorities, provided the prisoner retains the attorney himself, shall govern your deliberations on this issue in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Sumner“the State may impose reasonable restrictions and restraints upon the acknowledged propensity of prisoners to abuse the giving and seeking of assistance in the preparation of applications for relief: for example, by limitations on the time and location of such activities and the imposition of punishment for the giving or receipt of consideration in connection with such activities.”
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.