Paine v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.2d 197 · 1979
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Johnson v. Rodriguez (1997), State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994)
39 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · Monroe v. Pape · Gagnon v. Scarpelli
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a claim of constitutional magnitude is raised when a prisoner alleges (1) that information is in his file, (2) that the information is false, and (3) that it is relied on to a constitutionally significant degree.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have today announced a right secured to state prison inmates by the Constitution, to have prejudicial erroneous information expunged from their prison files; but we think that, as a jurisdictional predicate to filing an action under § 1983, the inmate must allege that the prison officials have deprived him of this right. This means that application for expunction must be made in the first instance to prison authorities.... State prison authorities cannot be said to have denied an inmate’s right to have erroneous information expunged from his file, unless they have been requested to do so and have refused. The prior application to prison authorities is a means to forestall a threatened deprivation of constitutional rights; after such application the erroneous information may be expunged and the inmate would then have “ ‘nothing to complain about in either a state or federal court’ ”.... An inmate who believes his file to contain false information should notify prison officials of this fact in writing, specifying what information he believes is false and what the true facts are. The prison officials will be given a reasonable time to respond. If the officials inform the inmate that the challenged information is not in fact in his file, no further action will lie, as we presume the good faith of prison authorities. If the officials find that erroneous information is contained in the file, the information should be expunged and the inmate so notified. If the officials inform t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haskins v. Lears“as a jurisdictional predicate to filing an action under § 1983, the inmate must allege that the prison officials have deprived him of this right [to the expungement of erroneous information in prison, files]. This means that the application for ex-punction must be made in the first instance to prison authorities. , This is not a requirement of exhaustion, but rather a requirement of jurisdiction. State prison authorities cannot be said to have denied an inmate’s right to have erroneous information expunged from his file, unless they have been requested to do so and have refused. An inmate who believes his file to contain false information should notify prison officials in writing, specifying what information he believes is false and what the true facts are. 7”
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.