JACKSON v. Hendrick’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Commonwealth v. Stanley (1982), Harris v. Pernsley (1987)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 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 Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Smuck v. Hobson · Holt v. Sarver · Holt v. Sarver
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the instant case, six days of testimony produced a complicated and prolix record. Upon exhaustively analyzing the evidence, the court made seventy-four detailed findings of fact and numerous conclusions of law. Because of the complexity of the case before it, the court properly concluded that fashioning appropriate relief would require a detailed study of the available alternatives. “ ‘Apart from the extraordinary nature of the problems presented by the record, it would be “manifestly impossible” for the Court to anticipate and to appraise all of the factors requiring consideration in administering the prisons, and to draft rules accordingly. This is not the function of the Court but of the prison officials, and through the master, who will serve as an organizer and a conduit, the fruits of their labor will be brought to the Court for its approbation.’ Jackson v. Hendrick , No. 71-2437, Feb. Term, 1971, at 253 (Pa.C.P.Phila., filed April 7, 1972). The court therefore retained jurisdiction, appointed the master, and ordered the parties, with the master’s help, to devise and submit to the court a plan to remedy conditions in the Philadelphia prisons.” Jackson v. Hendrick, supra at 410-411 , 321 A.2d at 606 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Equitable remedies ... are distinguished by their flexibility, their unlimited variety, their adaptability to circumstances, and the , natural rules which govern their use.’ There is in fact no limit of their variety and application; the court of equity has the power of devising its remedy and shaping it so as to fit the changing circumstances of every case and the complex relations of all the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““What we must determine is whether the functions assigned to the master by the trial court are exclusively judicial. If they are, the master’s performance of those functions is barred by rule 1514. If the duties assigned to the master are non judicial, our rules do not deny a court of equity the right to avail itself of the assistance of a master.” (Footnotes omitted.) 9”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.