Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 497 F.2d 598 - Carl B. Hoitt, Jr. v. Joseph C. Vitek, Etc.

Carl B. Hoitt, Jr. v. Joseph C. Vitek, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis

497 F.2d 598 · 1974

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2008 · most notably Procunier v. Navarette (1978), Hamm v. County (1985)

33 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions

3801974198019902000decided

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 Scheuer v. Rhodes · Monroe v. Pape · Pierson v. Ray · Boddie v. Connecticut · Johnson v. Avery

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

  1. “'(e) mergencies, however, cease to be emergencies when they continue indefinitely and inmates cannot be kept confined to their cells indefinitely in alleged violation of their constitutional rights merely on the assertion of the Warden that prison security requires it.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “viable complaint challenging a post-emergency lockup must allege nothing less than the continued deprivation of basic rights or needs for an unreasonable length of time, maliciously, through excessive neglect, or arbitrarily (e.g., without any justification of practical necessity related to prison security).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the confinement was being continued in bad faith as a subterfuge for the denial of prisoners' procedural rights.”
    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.