Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 911 F.2d 37 - Harrison v. Dahm

Harrison v. Dahm’s Empirical Analysis

911 F.2d 37 · 1990

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2016

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

150199020002010decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Wolff v. McDonnell · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Granberry v. Greer

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

  1. “[a]s to the evidence log, in which the chain of custody of the urine specimen was recorded, Harrison was not allowed to view the log as a matter of policy based on the orderly administration of the correctional center”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Not only is it beyond belief that Harrison could not anticipate that the test results would be positive, but, as earlier stated, his argument lacks any support in the case law. Wolff requires only that Harrison be given written notice of the charges against him no less than twenty-four hours before the hearing. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564 , 94 S.Ct. at 2978 . He got written notice on the morning of January 27 that he was charged with ‘5-5 I-H Drug or Intoxicant Abuse,’ and that the hearing was set for the morning of January 29.... “... As to the test results, Harrison was informed at the disciplinary hearing that the EMIT test was positive for marijuana, and was given an opportunity to view the card on which the test result was recorded. Transcript of Hearing before U.S. Magistrate at 81, 125, 188. Harrison did not seek out the test result before the hearing, as he could have done, id. at 128, 153-55, and he asked no questions about the result when shown the result card at the hearing. Id. at 188.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “prison officials are [not] required to supply an inmate with a copy of test results”
    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.