George McLaughlin v. Frank A. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
520 F.2d 382 · 1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1993
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Ristaino v. Ross · Wingo v. Wedding · Birzon v. King · Palmigiano v. Baxter · Morris v. Travisono
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The single question presented on this appeal is whether the board’s failure to inquire into the credibility of the informant and the reliability of his information was so fundamentally unfair to the plaintiff as to deprive him of due process. We acknowledge at the outset that we are troubled by the realization that the administrative decision adverse to plaintiff was based exclusively on information allegedly provided by an undisclosed and wholly untested informant. The fact that one gun was found where it was reported to be provides scant corroboration, since the hiding place was in a housing unit other than plaintiff’s and there was no independent evidence linking him to the gun. The classification board’s guarded language in summing up the evidence against plaintiff offers no reassurance lessening the apprehension that plaintiff’s transfer may be directly attributable either to an unintentionally inaccurate report or a maliciously contrived one. “Even if we were inclined now to articulate a specific constitutional rule requiring in camera examination, we would regard that path as barred by Wolff . We do not label as insubstantial plaintiff’s argument that inquiry into the reliability of an informant is necessary to protect an inmate adequately against arbitrary actions by prison officials, Wolff, 418 U.S. at 558 , 94 S.Ct. 2842 . Wolff indicates, however, that the development of specific procedural requirements beyond those enumerated in that opinion must be left in the f”
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.