Goodwin v. Oswald’s Empirical Analysis
462 F.2d 1237 · 1972
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2005 · most notably Adams v. Carlson (1973), Kahane v. Carlson (1975)
15 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on McMann v. Richardson · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Shelton v. Tucker · Johnson v. Avery · Terminiello v. Chicago
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The communication which is the subject of this' suit was sent by Legal Aid during the week of February 7, 1972 to all those inmates who had signed up as members of the union but to no one else. In the packet sent to each inmate the main document was. a seven-page letter detailing legal steps being taken on behalf of the union and giving legal advice on a number of union matters. A copy of the letter to the Commissioner requesting recognition of the union, the union constitution, and press releases issued February 7 announcing the formation of the union and commitments of support for it by prominent individuals, were included. On February 9, the Commissioner told Legal Aid that he would deny recognition to the union; a week later he informed the Society that he had not and would not deliver the February 7 letters to the 980 addressees. Apparently, fifteen of the letters had arrived unsealed and were examined by prison officials; on the basis of this scrutiny the authorities had decided to withhold the letters.” 462 F.2d at 1239 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendants argued that their action was justified because the formation of a union was against prison policy and would jeopardize their control of the institution. They interpreted the letter as a declaration that the union was ‘operational’ and as an incitement to ‘concerted activity’ that would present a clear and present danger of disruption to the institution. They anticipated that if the letters were delivered, and they were then obliged to burst the balloon of rising expectations by proscribing union activity, they would subject themselves to danger.” -162 F.2d at 1240.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although the task of line-drawing inevitably remains, federal judges should keep in the foréfront of their minds, when passing on the acts of government officials, that they have not been vested with executive or legislative power rather than rush to impose their supposedly superior knowledge, on all sorts of questions, upon the duly appointed officials who have lived with the problems and have been given responsibility to deal with them. Failure to observe such self-limitation will ultimately have most serious consequences.” 462 F.2d at 1251.”
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.