Ex Parte Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2017
13 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
Relies on United States v. Halper · United States v. Ursery · Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch · Wellman v. Wellman · Heitman v. State
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he sanctions imposed upon appellant ... were not so grossly unrelated to the County’s remedial interests at stake in the environment of the Detention Center that they could only be viewed as crimi nal punishment. This Court notes appellant was already confined in administrative segregation when he was brought before the Administrative Hearing Board. Their additional assessment of fifteen days disciplinary detention was not disproportionate to the Bexar County Adult Detention Center’s remedial goals of maintaining order and discipline. This Court concludes appellant’s Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protections were not violated by the sanctions imposed upon him. To rule otherwise in this case would place prison and jail staffs in the position of having to choose between immediate disciplinary sanctions and pursuing criminal prosecutions. This could very well have a destructive effect upon the ability of the staffs of the State’s jails and prisons to maintain discipline within their respective inmate populations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Kelley“[Tjhis Court should look to whether the disciplinary sanctions were created with an intent to be punitive (and not, as appellant [Hernandez] would have it, whether they were imposed in a punitive manner) or were they created with an intent to achieve a remedial goal. If the latter is true, then this Court should determine whether the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon appellant were so disproportionately punitive that they su-perceded the remedial goal of those sanctions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Kelley
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.