Nolan v. Scafati’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 federal appellate · 21 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “[w]hile all the procedural safeguards provided citizens charged with a crime obviously cannot and need not be provided to prison inmates charged with violation of a prison disciplinary rule, some assurances of elemental fairness are essential when substantial individual interests are at stake.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lathrop v. Brewer · Tyree v. Fitzpatrick

2. ““Admittedly, Ex parte Hull and Johnson v. Avery both dealt with an inmate using the writ of habeas corpus to pursue post-conviction remedies. We are satisfied, however, that the right of reasonable access to the courts —and its corollary right to obtain assistance — extends to inmates using 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to remedy denials of constitutional rights occurring during incarceration. “Both the writ of habeas corpus and a § 1983 action are designed for — and limited to — the vindication of federal constitutional rights. We see no sound basis for putting the constitutional rights protected by the writ on a higher plane than those cognizable under section 1983, particularly since there are instances where the same right might be asserted under either form of relief. Secondly, we see no basis for confining the Johnson v. Avery holding to inmates seeking post-conviction relief. Such a rule would allow prison officials to silence —and perhaps punish — inmates seeking vindication of those constitutional rights clearly held by prison inmates. E. g., Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 , 84 S.Ct. 1733 , 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964); Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 , 88 S.Ct. 994 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 (1968), affirming 263 F.Supp. 327 (N.D.Ala. 1966); Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1967); Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1968).””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cross v. Powers · Enrique B. Andrade v. W. B. (Bill) Hauck, Sheriff

3. “that prison inmates do not have all the constitutional rights of citizens in society-and may hold some constitutional rights in diluted form-does not permit prison officials to frustrate vindication of those rights which are enjoyed by inmates or to be the sole judges-by refusal to mail letters to counsel-to determine which letters assert constitutional rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goodwin v. Oswald