Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2010
6 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 Alabama v. Pugh · United Steelworkers of America v. Weber · Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co. · DeLyra v. United States · Newman v. Alabama
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.
“"The relief he seeks from alleged cruel and unusual treatment in the prison system is not cognizable under a writ of habeas corpus, and the appropriate remedy in this case for the claim of illegal conditions of confinement, if proved, would not be release from custody. Phillips v. State , 41 Ala.App. 393 , 133 So.2d 512 (1961); Cook v. Hanberry , 596 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1979), revising 592 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied , 442 U.S. 932 , 99 S.Ct. 2866 , 61 L.Ed.2d 301 (1979); Maddux v. Rose , 483 F.Supp. 661 (E.D.Tenn. 1980); Walker v. Graham , 438 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1983); Amek Bin Rilla v. Israel , 113 Wis.2d 514 , 335 N.W.2d 384 (1983). The court stated in Cook v. Hanberry , [ 592 F.2d at 249 ]: "`Assuming arguendo that his allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual punishment, the petitioner is still not entitled to release from prison. Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration. Granville v. Hunt , 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 9 , 12-13; see also Williams v. Steele , 8 Cir. 1952, 194 F.2d 917 , cert. denied , 344 U.S. 822 , 73 S.Ct. 20 , 97 L.Ed. 640 . The relief from such unconstitutional practices, if proved, is in the form of equitably-imposed restraint, not freedom from otherwise lawful incarceration. See Konigsberg v. Ciccone , W.D.Mo. 1968, 285 F.Supp. 585 , 589 , aff'd , 8 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 161 , cert. denied , 397 U.S. 963 , 90 S.Ct. 996 , 25 L.Ed.2d 255 (1970). This is because the so”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Looney v. State“"The relief [an inmate] seeks from alleged cruel and unusual treatment in the prison system is not cognizable under a writ of habeas corpus, and the appropriate remedy in this case for the claim of illegal conditions of confinement, if proved, would not be release from custody. . . . "`[T]he sole function of habeas corpus is to provide relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody, and it cannot be used for any other purpose.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hartley v. State
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.