Viens v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
871 F.2d 1328 · 1989
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Whitford v. Boglino (1995), Bressman v. Farrier (1991)
45 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Younger v. Harris · Wolff v. McDonnell · Gerstein v. Pugh · Preiser v. Rodriguez
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because the “some evidence” standard ... does not permit courts to consider the relative weight of the evidence presented to the disciplinary board, it is ‘[generally immaterial that an accused prisoner pre-' sented exculpatory evidence unless that evidence directly undercuts the reliability if the evidence on which the disciplinary authority relied’ in support of its conclusion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] federal court need not stay its hand merely because these sanctions were imposed concurrently with a revocation of good time. Hanson v. Heckel does not bar a section 1983 action challenging the procedures used at a prison disciplinary hearing where the hearing resulted, as in this case, in the imposition of significant sanctions other than the revocation of good time. This is true even though good-time credits were revoked as a result of the same hearing. In this case, [plaintiffs] were removed from the general prison population for almost a year and lost the privileges associated with their prison grade as a result of the Adjustment Committee hearing they now attack. These punishments are substantial; plaintiffs do not challenge these sanctions merely as a pretext to attack the revocation of good time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Handley v. Welborn · Sisk
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.