Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 879 F. Supp. 752 - Glover v. Johnson

879 F. Supp. 752 - Glover v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
February 2000
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Bounds v. Smith · Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Knop v. Johnson · Glover v. Johnson · 478 F. Supp. 1075 - Glover v. Johnson

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “1. With respect to access to court, the court identified the following “deficiencies”: “[N]o method has been developed to determine whether there exists an adequate pool of writ-writers in the prisons. Additionally, information is still lacking about the adequacy of writ-writers and their utilizations____ [Tjhere is no library currently at Camp Gilman nor a paralegal.” 2. With respect to educational programming, the court observed: “[Tjhere still are women in college programming who do not have IPP’s prepared. Additionally, there are a number of women who. are prevented from taking a full twelve-credit course load because of space problems.” 3. With respect to apprenticeships, the court identified five programs at Crane, and six at Scott, and noted the defendants’ arguments that “they have not-been able to fill three of the five Crane apprenticeships due to eligibility requirements,” which have excluded approximately 100 women. Placing the blame on the defendants for this inability, the court concluded that the defendants “are clearly not in substantial compliance with the goals of apprenticeship programming as established in the Remedial Plan. Under, the Plan, defendants are required to recruit and motivate women to participate in apprenticeship programming.” The court suggested that the eligibility criteria employed by the defendants “may discourage women from even applying for apprenticeships.” 4. With regard to. vocational programming, the court characterized its earlier ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Amend or Modify the Compliance Monitor and Termination Language in the Remedial Plan and the Plan for Vocational Programs and Work Pass and Defendants’ request to terminate the role of monitors and Court jurisdiction is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that until December 31, 1996[,] the Court Monitor shall submit quarterly reports detailing the status of Defendants’ compliance with Court orders and the Plans to the Court and the parties; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within sixty (60) days after December 31, 1996[,] the Court, with the aid of the Monitor, shall determine whether compliance with Court orders and the Plans has been substantially accomplished through this procedure: 1. The Court would first review compliance under the Plans and would dismiss any portions of the Plans for which it found compliance. 2. The Court would entertain motions regarding the portions of the Plans for which the Court did not find compliance. In these motions the parties could argue the relevant constitutional standards and show that compliance with the ftdl terms of the Plans should not be required.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The perplexing issue is: How is finality reached in these public agency-public law eases? ... As it is so often a need in the administration- of justice, a balance must be reached. That balance is reached, it seems, when there is- substantial compliance with the goals of ... a negotiated settlement____ [TJhat requirement of compliance has not yet completely been reached. That fact may not be used, however, to avoid -addressing finality. Even though progress has been slow ..., there has been substantial progress toward finality. It is this court’s view that a further test period is still required. That test period can be measured in a discrete time frame. This court, with the aid of its Monitor[ ], will determine within a period of sixty (60) days after December 31, 1996, whether compliance has been substantially accomplished. During the period prior to December 31, 1996, ... the monitor[ ] will perform quarterly reviews which will be submitted to the court and the parties detailing the compliance status in each program____”
    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.