Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 F.2d 455 - Rush v. United States

Rush v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

559 F.2d 455 · 1977

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
4
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Corgain v. Miller (1983), United States v. Burroughs (1981)

13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

14019771980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 753

Relies on Bounds v. Smith · Britt v. North Carolina · United States v. MacCollom · O'Callaghan v. Sheldon · Moeck v. Zajackowski

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

  1. ““Because such access is impossible without a trial transcript or adequate substitute, the Supreme Court has nearly uniformly required that the prosecuting sovereignty provide trial records to inmates unable to buy them. ‘The only cases that have rejected indigent defendants’ claims to transcripts have done so either because an adequate alternative was available but not used, Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 [, 92 S.Ct. 431 , 30 L.Ed.2d 400 ] ... (1971), or because the request was plainly frivolous and a prior opportunity to obtain a transcript was waived. United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 [, 96 S.Ct. 2086 , 48 L.Ed.2d 666 ] ... (1976).’ Bounds v. Smith, supra, 430 U.S. at 822 n. 8[, 97 S.Ct. at 1495 n. 8] ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Denying access to court files to prisoners, given the statutory inspection rights granted by 28 U.S.C. § 753 (b), works an invidious discrimination which cannot pass muster under the equal protection prégnant of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause when the important substantive constitutional right of access to the courts is implicated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The original notes or other original records and the copy of the transcript in the office of the clerk shall be open during office hours to inspection by any person without charge.”
    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.