Stone v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
546 F.2d 730 · 1976
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 4 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United States v. Berry (1980), Holt v. Pitts (1980)
56 federal appellate · 4 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 23 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
Relies on Barber v. Page · Price v. Johnston · United States v. Louisiana · Strunk v. United States · Carbo v. United States
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In making his determination the district judge should take into account the costs and inconvenience of transporting a prisoner from his place of incarceration to the courtroom, any potential danger or security risk which the presence of a particular inmate would pose to the court, the substantiality of the matter at issue, the need for an early determination of the matter, the possibility of delaying trial until the prisoner is released, the probability of success on the merits, the integrity of the correctional system, and the interests of the inmate in presenting his testimony in person rather than by deposition.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holt v. Pitts · Jerry v. Francisco“'[t]he fact that there is no constitutional right to be present in a civil action does not sanction the summary exclusion of a plaintiff-prisoner from the trial of his prison-connected civil rights claim.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holt v. Pitts · Jones v. Hamelman““We agree that the right of access to the courts encompasses the right of the inmate to have his case presented, but we do not agree that a plaintiff-inmate must be given the opportunity, in all instances, to appear personally and present his version of the facts. As long as the inmate and his counsel are afforded adequate opportunity to confer confidentially and to petition the courts about matters in controversy, the right of access is satisfied. Moeck v. Zajackowski, 541 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1976).””
2 later decisions 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.