Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 510 F.2d 613 - John Wesley Clutchette v. Raymond K. Procunier

John Wesley Clutchette v. Raymond K. Procunier’s Empirical Analysis

510 F.2d 613 · 1975

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
September 2001
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2001 · most notably Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976), Johnson v. Duffy (1978)

45 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

5101975198019902000decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · John Wesley Clutchette v. Raymond J. Procunier

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

  1. “Where an illiterate inmate is involved, however, or where the complexity of the issues makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case, he should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or if that is forbidden, to have adequate substitute aid in the form of help from the staff or from a sufficiently competent inmate designated by the staff. We need not pursue the matter further here, however, for there is no claim that respondent, McDonnell, is within the class of inmates entitled to advice or help from others in the course of a prison disciplinary hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We are mindful of the [Supreme] Court's encouragement of prison disciplinary procedures and of experiments within the disciplinary context directed toward rehabilitative goals. We are particularly aware of the Court’s admonition that the minimum constitutional protections mandated by Wolff are not “graven in stone” . . . and that the underlying constitutional concepts will be subject to reevaluation as changes in prison discipline evolve. 510 F.2d 615 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Whenever a prisoner requests and is denied the privilege of confrontation and cross-examination in a disciplinary proceeding in which a serious sanction can be imposed . . . the prison authorities must enter in the record of the proceeding and make available to the prisoner an explanation for the denial. . . .” 510 F.2d 616 .”
    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.