Adams v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
488 F.2d 619 · 1973
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 6 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Crowder v. Lash (1982), Sweet v. South Carolina Department of Corrections (1975)
72 federal appellate · 6 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · Morrissey v. Brewer · United States v. Wade · Mapp v. Ohio
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All other rights of an inmate are illusory without it, being entirely dependent for their existence on the whim or caprice of the prison warden.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“Citation of authority is hardly needed for the proposition that an inmate’s right of unfettered access to the courts is as fundamental a right as any other he may hold. (Cases cited.) All other rights of an inmate are illusory without it, being entirely dependent for their existence on the whim or caprice of the prison warden. Stiltner v. Rhay, 322 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1963). The judiciary, moreover, has not been content merely to keep free the lines of communication between the inmate, the courts, and agencies of correction. Whether as a vital concomitant of the prisoner’s right to petition the bench or as a distinct requirement of his right to effective counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, a right of access by an inmate to counsel has been perceived by a number of courts. (Cases cited.) Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 , 89 S.Ct. 747 , 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969), for example, required that prison authorities allow inmates ready access to jailhouse lawyers. In the same vein, prison officials have been prohibited from interfering with postal communications between an inmate and his counsel which relate to the legality of either his criminal conviction or the conditions of his incarceration. (Cases cited.), even where the lawyer is not the inmate’s counsel of record. (Cases cited.) The final phase of this development has been a recognition that the effective protection of access to counsel requires that the traditional privacy of the lawyer-client relationship be implemented in t”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Plainly, an in-prison disciplinary proceeding may be at least as informal as a parole revocation hearing. Thus, there is no absolute right to confront or to cross-examine witnesses ; it is doubtful that counsel or a lay substitute is essential. As a minimum, however, the prisoner must receive adequate advance written notice of the charges against him, he must be afforded a fair opportunity to explain his version of the incident, and, to insure a degree of impartiality, the factual determination must be made by a person or persons other than the officer who reported the infraction.” (Emphasis added.) Miller, at 715-716.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Adams v. Carlson
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.