Powell v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “1. Defendants shall conduct all Adjustment Committee or Superintendent’s Proceedings, or other disciplinary proceedings that may result in an inmate at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility being confined in a Special Housing Unit or Segregation Unit, in accordance with the following procedures: a) Formal written notice of charges must be served on the inmate at least 24 hours before the hearing; b) The inmate shall be permitted to call witnesses on her behalf provided that so doing does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. The written notice of charges served in accordance with Paragraph 1(a), shall inform the inmate of her right to call witnesses; c) If permission to call a witness is denied, the party conducting the hearing shall give the inmate a written statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals presented by the witness. d) At the conclusion of the hearing, the inmate shall be given a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for any action taken; e) No person who has participated in any investigation of the acts complained of, or who was a witness to those acts shall be a member of any Adjustment Committee or Superintendent’s Proceeding relating to those acts; 2. If any inmate is confined to Special Housing or segregation “pending investigation” of charges, a hearing must be held within seven days of the date of her confinement. In unusual or emergency si”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Powell v. Ward

2. “In some circumstances, the nature of one’s position or the relationship between that position and the outcome of adjudications disqualifies a person from serving with impartiality mandated by the Due Process Clause. (Citations omitted.) But the fact that a decision-maker has responsibilities to uphold standards of conduct does not inevitably mean that he is disqualified from adjudicating allegations that those standards have been breached. (Citations omitted.) In Wolff v. McDonnell, the Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to the impartiality of a prison discipline committee whose chairman was the Associate Warden for Custody. (Citations omitted.) We conclude that prison officials responsible for maintaining security are not disqualified by the Due Process Clause from adjudicating allegations of breaches of prison security solely by the nature of their positions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burch v. Kaiser