Harmon v. Auger’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 270 · 1985
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Spence v. Farrier (1986), Clark v. Brewer (1985)
10 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Wolff v. McDonnell · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Hewitt v. Helms · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellants also challenge the notice they received ordering them to respond to charges of violating prison rules. Noting that inmates must receive notice of the charges to which they are to respond, Wolff [v. McDonnell], 418 U.S. [539,] 564, 94 S.Ct. [2963,] 2978, [ 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) ], they argue that the reports they received were inadequate. Both inmates were charged with ‘possession of contraband.’ They received reports stating that the urine samples obtained on particular dates in December 1982 were positive for THC. The Magistrate ruled that notices should state there was consumption of marijuana within 30 days of the test. Although the Magistrate held in favor of appellants on this issue, they appeal because they contend the notice requirements issued by the Magistrate do not go far enough. “The Magistrate held as follows: “... where the exclusive evidence that prison authorities have that a prisoner is guilty of possessing drugs in violation of disciplinary rules is based on data from an EMIT-ST test, the notice of the charge need not contain the specific date and location on which the violation occurred. “... At least the general time of a drug possession offense must be specified when the only evidence of the offense consists of the results from an EMIT-ST test. The scientific testimony indicates that ingestion of THC must occur within thirty days prior to a positive result for THC and an EMIT-ST test. Thus, the disciplinary notice could have and should have st”
2 later decisions 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.