Hamilton v. O'Leary’s Empirical Analysis
976 F.2d 341 · 1992
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Hessel v. O'Hearn (1992), Howard v. United States Bureau of Prisons (2007)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Associated Builders, Inc. v. Alabama Power Co. · Wilson v. O'Leary · Stephen L. Ustrak, Cross-Appellant v. James W. Fairman, Cross-Appellee
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 98 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”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"On the record before the committee, the probability that the plaintiff had possessed one or more of these weapons cannot be reckoned as greater than one in eight, or 12.5 percent. That is not my idea of `some evidence,' Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2773 [ 86 L.Ed.2d 356 ] (1985), unless purely collective guilt is deemed to satisfy due processwhich in prison circumstances it might be, cf. Ustrak v. Fairman, 781 F.2d 573, 575 (7th Cir. 1986), but the defandants do not defend the disciplinary committee's action on that ground." (Emphasis added.) Hamilton, 976 F.2d at 347 (Posner, J., dissenting).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.