Campbell v. McGruder’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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At the August 7 hearing, Charles M. Rodgers, the Assistant Director of Operations of the Department of Corrections, and the man specifically charged by the Director with the responsibility for compliance with this Court’s Order of March 21, admitted that although he was familiar with that Order and with the Order issued by the United States Court of Appeals on May 2, 1975, he had nevertheless made no efforts to consult with the Chief Judges of the two trial courts in this jurisdiction, nor with the District of Columbia Bail Agency, as contemplated by the order of the Court of Appeals. Similarly, although the Department’s report filed with this Court on May 16 stated that the Department would convert recreation space at the Jail to afford additional housing, Mr. Rodgers admitted that he had no intent to do so, and had no such intent at the time the report was filed with the Court. As of August 7, no system had been established by the Department to determine whether or not the Jail was complying with the 48-square feet requirement; no consultation with the courts had been undertaken to attempt to expedite the sentencing of convicted individuals being held at the Jail awaiting sentencing; and, although this Court’s Order applied only to pre-conviction detainees, no effort had been made to identify that class of persons as distinguished from those already convicted but awaiting sentencing. During the course of the August 7 hearing, at the suggestion of this Court’s Deputy Clerk, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Campbell v. McGruder

2. “a) all misdemeanants serving sentences; b) sentenced inmates from District Court awaiting designation of a Federal Bureau of Prisons institution for service of sentence, or awaiting transportation to such Federal institution after designation; c) sentenced inmates from Superior Court where designation to a Federal Bureau of Prisons institution has been recommended by the sentencing judge, pending action on that recommendation and transportation to the institution; d) inmates within three months of their parole eligibility date at time of sentence; e) inmates within six months of their release date at time of sentence; f) inmates on work release charged with violation of their work release conditions, pending review by the Work Release Review Board; g) inmates charged with parole violations, pending their preliminary parole revocation hearing; h) sentenced inmates for whom a court orders protection and/or separation from other inmates; i) sentenced inmates whom the Department wishes to segregate from other residents at the Lorton Complex for protective reasons; j) sentenced inmates assigned to the “Captain’s Detail” (work crew) at the Jail; k) inmates brought to the Jail pursuant to writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum or ad testificandum; 1) inmates sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act to evaluations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5010 (e), after completion of the evaluation and pending final imposition of sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Campbell v. McGruder

3. “Apart from converting other space to a new dormitory at the Jail, the Department and the city have made no substantial efforts to comply with the Order of this Court since its issuance in March; and there is no evidence of any contemplated effort to either reduce the population at the Jail or to provide additional space. (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Campbell v. McGruder