Crowe v. Leeke’s Empirical Analysis
550 F.2d 184 · 1977
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Wright v. Collins (1985), Vn Meekins La v. United Transportation Union (1991)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Commissioner v. Sunnen · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · Taylor v. Sterrett
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]es judicata has very little applicability to a fact situation involving a continuing series of acts, for generally each act gives rise to new cause of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The First Circuit, in Smith v. Robbins, 454 F.2d 696 (1972), affirmed the district court’s order requiring attorney mail to be opened in the presence of the prisoner. It reached this result primarily out of concern that the opening of such mail outside the prisoner’s presence might suggest to him that a prison official was reading this correspondence. The court worried that “the resulting fear may chill communications between the prisoner and his counsel.” Id. at 697 . Rejecting the justifications for the procedure raised by prison authorities, the First Circuit concluded that there was “no reason to leave such possible apprehensions on such an important matter as right to counsel in the minds of the prisoner or his attorney.” The Fifth Circuit has recently reached a similar conclusion. In Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (1976), the court relied on the inmates’ right of access to the courts in affirming “that portion of the district court’s order requiring that incoming prisoner mail from courts, attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, and probation or parole officers be opened only in the presence of the inmate.” Id. at 475 . The court noted that although most of the inmates’ fears of abuses by jail officials were unfounded, “the inhibitory effect of a jail official’s access to information contained in the correspondence may diminish an inmate’s lawful access to the courts.” Id. at 476 . Of like effect are Bach v. Illinois, 504 F.2d 1100 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 418 U.S. 910 , 9”
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.