Spence v. Farrier’s Empirical Analysis
807 F.2d 753 · 1986
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Dunn v. White (1989), McDonell v. Hunter (1987)
43 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Schmerber v. State of California · Hudson v. Palmer · Pell v. Procunier
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The EMIT test results obviously provide some evidence of drug use. EMIT tests have been found sufficiently reliable to meet the requirements of the due process clause. See, e.g., Harmon v. Auger , 768 F.2d 270 (8th Cir. 1985) (EMIT test results are ninety-five per cent (95%) accurate and form a sufficient basis for disciplinary action); Wycoff v. Resig , 613 F. Supp. 1504 (N.D.Ind. 1985) (a positive EMIT test confirmed by a second EMIT test or its equivalent satisfies due process); Jensen v. Lick , 589 F. Supp. 35 (D.N.D. 1984) (prison officials could impose sanctions on prisoners based upon an unconfirmed EMIT test); Peranzo v. Caughlin , 608 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (double EMIT testing held sufficient to satisfy due process); Hoeppner v. State , 379 N.W.2d 23 , 25 (Iowa App. 1985) ('the limited rights set forth in Wolff [v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)] do not entitle a prisoner to an independent sample of evidence used in a disciplinary proceeding'); and Smith v. State , 250 Ga. 438 , 298 S.E.2d 482 (1983) (the EMIT test is sufficiently reliable to stand as the only evidence in a parole revocation hearing). But see, Higgs v. Wilson , 616 F. Supp. 226 (W.D.Ky. 1985); and Kane v. Fair , 33 Cr.L. 2492 (Mass.Super. 1983). We hold that the EMIT test, as used at Iowa State Penitentiary with a confirmatory second test, contains sufficient indicia of reliability to provide some evidence of drug use."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[s]tates need not implement all possible procedural safeguards against erroneous deprivation of liberty when utilizing results of scientific testing devices in accusatory proceedings.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prison disciplinary proceedings take place in a highly charged atmosphere, and prison administrators must often act swiftly on the basis of evidence that might be insufficient in less exigent circumstances.”
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.