Ward v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
690 F.2d 1098 · 1982
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Cleavinger v. Saxner (1985), Buschi v. Kirven (1985)
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Wolff v. McDonnell · Butz v. Economou · Hamling v. United States
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the administrative proceedings should be “adversary in nature;” (2) the officer exercising the adjudicatory power in the administrative proceeding should not be subject to supervision or direction of other employees engaged in investigative or prosecutorial duties; (3) a party should be entitled to offer either oral or written relevant and non-repetitive evidence on his behalf; (4) the record of the proceed ings should be duly recorded and, so recorded, should constitute the exclusive record for decision; (5) the. proceedings should be so structured as to assure the exercise by the officer in his decision of independent judgment on the evidence before him; (6) the proceeding should be such as to prevent the danger of retaliatory response by the disappointed inmate to an adverse decision; and (7) there should be reasonable opportunity for the party involved to challenge by appeal the decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Administrative or investigative actions or ... actions without the officer’s jurisdiction or in a proceeding lacking the normal characteristics or attributes of a judicial proceeding with ‘many of the same safeguards.’ 8 ... available in a judicial process.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The majority finds the safeguards here in a prisoner’s right to appeal an adverse disciplinary action to ... an officer of the central state administration of the prison system. To me this “safeguard” is more illusory than real____ [T]he state department administering the prison system [cannot] be expected to function as an impartial arbiter of conflicts between the institutional interests of the prisons and the rights of inmates. Without impugning the competence or integrity of prison administrators, I am unable to view this system of review as a reliable check on the discretion of prison disciplinary committees----”
1 later decision 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.