Clark v. Beard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

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

1. “"The writ of mandamus exists to compel official performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty. Mandamus cannot issue to compel performance of a discretionary act or to govern the manner of performing [the] required act. This Court may issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioners have a clear legal right, the responding public official has a corresponding duty, and no other adequate and appropriate remedy at law exists. Moreover mandamus is proper to compel the performance of official duties whose scope is defined as a result of the mandamus action litigation. Thus we have held that mandamus will lie to compel action by an official where his refusal to act in the requested way stems from his erroneous interpretation of the law."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. A. Funk O. Harrison, a minor, by his guardian A. Lee v. Tom Wolf, in his official capacity as Governor of Pennsylvania PA DEP · O'Toole v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

2. “Conditions at [the Supermax Facility] are more restrictive than any other form of incarceration in Ohio, including conditions on its death row or in its administrative control units. The latter are themselves a highly restrictive form of solitary confinement.... In [the Supermax Facility] almost every aspect of an inmate's life is controlled and monitored. Inmates must remain in their cells, which measure 7 by 14 feet, for 23 hours per day. A light remains on in the cell at all times, though it is sometimes dimmed, and an inmate who attempts to shield the light to sleep is subject to further discipline. During the one hour per day that an inmate may leave his cell, access is limited to one of two indoor recreation cells. Incarceration at [the Supermax Facility] is synonymous with extreme isolation. In contrast to any other Ohio prison, including any segregation unit, [the Supermax Facili ty] cells have solid metal doors with metal strips along their sides and bottoms which prevent conversation or communication with other inmates. All meals are taken alone in the inmate's cell instead of in a common eating area. Opportunities for visitation are rare and in all events are conducted through glass walls. It is fair to say [the Supermax Facility] inmates are deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. Pa. Department of Corrections

3. “Wilkinson is ... distinguishable from the instant case because the constitutional due process inquiry in Wilkinson focused on Ohio’s procedures for assigning or transferring inmates to the [S]upermax [FJacility. Here, assuming arguendo that [the inmates] had asserted a protected liberty interest, their complaint does not indicate how they were deprived of due process of law. [The inmates] were all sentenced to death, presumably after a trial by jury, and an execution warrant was signed for each of them. At that point, as discussed previously in this opinion, [DOC] had no discretion over where to house them. By statute it had to place them in the [capital [c]ase [u]nit.... [The inmates] have failed to aver how due process was lacking.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lopez v. Pa. Department of Corrections