McFadden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Motion must be overruled unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, the court believes that the plaintiff would be unable to prove any facts which would support his claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 865 So. 2d 1065 - Elkins v. McKenzie · 656 So. 2d 790 - Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent Ass'n

2. “In Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 , 109 S.Ct. 1904 , 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that Kentucky prison regulations did not give prisoners a liberty interest in being allowed visitation with certain people. Several persons were denied visitation with inmates because they had in some way been instrumental in bringing contraband into the facility. This action was taken by prison officials without a hearing. First, the Court said that the right to visitation with a certain person is not protected by the Due Process Clause since the denial of such is "`well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence.'" Thompson , 490 U.S. at 461 , 109 S.Ct. at 1909 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 515 [quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 , 103 S.Ct. 864, 869 , 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)]. Secondly, the State had not created a liberty interest because "the regulations are not worded in such a way that an inmate could reasonably expect to enforce them against the prison officials." Id. [490 U.S.] at 465, 109 S.Ct. at 1911 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 518 . The Court said that the regulations did not contain mandatory language in that "they stop short of requiring that a particular result is to be reached upon a finding that the substantive predicates are met." Id. at 464 , 109 S.Ct. at 1910 , 104 L.Ed.2d at 517 . The Fifth Circuit has indicated that a temporary suspension of an inmate's visitation privileges without a hearing does”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 633 So. 2d 978 - Puckett v. Stuckey

3. “look[] at all the evidentiary matters before [us] — admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. If, in this view, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should forthwith be entered in his favor. Otherwise, the motion should be denied. Issues of fact sufficient to require denial of a motion for summary judgment obviously are present where one party swears to one version of the matter in issue and another says the opposite. In addition, the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of fact exists is on the moving party. That is, the non-movant would be given the benefit of the doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 633 So. 2d 1011 - Triplett v. Dempsey