Hayes v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
555 F.2d 625 · 1977
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Hughes v. Rowe (1980), Crowder v. Lash (1982)
47 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · Baxter v. Palmigiano · Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If we were to allow broad unsupported findings as were offered in the present case to support as Institutional Adjustment Committee’s decision, a prisoner’s limited right to call witnesses could be arbitrarily denied in any case and thereby •be rendered meaningless. This court would be unable to exercise even limited review of such broad findings. Thus, if a proposed witness is not to be called, support for that decision and not just a broad conclusion should be reflected in the record. Prison officials should look at each proposed witness and determine whether or not he should be allowed to testify.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“does not ensure that prison officials will act fairly. Nor will this finding protect against subsequent collateral effects based on misunderstanding of the initial decision.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““. . . Written records of proceedings will thus protect the inmate against collateral consequences based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the original proceeding. Further, as to the disciplinary action itself, the provision for a written record helps to insure that administrators, faced with possible scrutiny by state officials and the public, and perhaps even the courts, where fundamental constitutional rights may have been abridged, will act fairly. Without written records, the inmate will be at a severe disadvantage in propounding his own cause to or defending himself from others. It may be that there will be occasions when personal or institutional safety is so implicated that the statement may properly exclude certain items of evidence, but in that event the statement should indicate the fact of the omission. Otherwise, we perceive no conceivable rehabilitative objective or prospect of prison disruption that can flow from the requirement of these statements.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.