Jones v. Hamelman’s Empirical Analysis
869 F.2d 1023 · 1989
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Dawson v. Delaware (1992), McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority (1993)
49 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Foman v. Davis · Davidson v. Cannon · Benson v. Cady · Walsh v. Mellas
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[t]he fact that there is no constitutional right to be present in a civil action does not sanction the summary exclusion of a plaintiff-prisoner from the trial of his prison-connected civil rights claim.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[w]e do not feel it is unreasonable to expect carefully drafted briefs clearly articulating the issues and the precise citation of relevant authority for the points in issue from professionals trained and educated in the law,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“carries a heavy burden on appeal because an evidentiary ruling will be reversed only if the trial court committed 'a clear abuse of discretion.'”
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.