White v. Keller, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
White v. Keller, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“here is no constitutional right to prison visitation, either for prisoners or visitors”
66 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 27 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dye v. Alsbrook (vawd, 2024-03-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Dye v. Alsbrook
W.D. Va. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
here is no constitutional right to prison visitation, either for prisoners or visitors
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Desper v. Harold Clarke (2×)
4th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
It understands the complaint to be alleging that “Desper did not receive an exemption after the mental health evaluations and that he was not told the precise reason why he was not selected for an exemption.” It argues, therefore, that the issue presented is whether Desper 8 “has a constitutionally protected right to in-person visitation with his minor child,” and on that issue, it claims that “no case[] establish[es] such a right.” Indeed, it maintains that the courts of appeals, including this court, have rejected the argument “that prisoners have a constitutionally protected r…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerome Williams v. Jon Ozmint (2×)
4th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
In a published opinion, we affirmed the district court’s decision without elaboration, stating that the decision was “correct.” 8 .588 F.2d at 914.
cited Cited "see" (2004)
Md. Att'y Gen. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. Keller, 438 F. Supp. 110 , 116 (D.Md. 1977) (right of physical association stems from the physical liberty of every individual), aff'd, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir. 1978).
cited Cited "see" Garrett v. Angelone
W.D. Va. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110 (D.Md.1977), aff'd, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir.1978); Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 , 109 S.Ct. 1904 , 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Elizabeth B. Mayo v. Michael P. Lane (2×)
7th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wilson v. Taylor, 733 F.2d 1539 (11th Cir.1984); see generally IDK, Inc. v. County of Clark, 836 F.2d 1185, 1191-93 (9th Cir.1988).) But it is a slight argument, for reasons well discussed in a case factually similar to the present one, White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110, 120 (D.Md.1977), aff’d per curiam, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir.1978).
cited Cited "see" Lopez v. Ruhl
W.D. Mich. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110 (D Md 1977), aff'd. 588 F.2d 913 (CA4 1978).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ashann-Ra v. Com. of Va.
W.D. Va. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110 (D.Md.1977), aff'd, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir.1978)(neither prisoners nor would-be visitors have any constitutional right to prison visitation).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rogers v. Scurr
8th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110 (D.Md.1977), aff'd, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir. 1978).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rogers v. Scurr
8th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110 (D.Md.1977), aff’d, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir. 1978).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ramos v. Lamm
10th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110, 114-19 (D.Md.), aff'd, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir.); Laaman v. Helgemoe, supra, 437 F.Supp. at 320 -22 and cases discussed therein.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ramos v. Lamm
10th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110, 114-19 (D.Md.), aff’d, 588 F.2d 913 (4th Cir.); Laa man v. Helgemoe, supra, 437 F.Supp. at 320 -22 and cases discussed therein.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wesley White, Mazola White, William Price, Wilhelemena Price, Clarence White, and Wendell A. Hall, and George J. Gruber, Jr., Beatrice F. Gruber, and Thomas L. Gruber
v.
Gerald A. Keller, Superintendent, Maryland Correctional Institution, Individually and in His Official Capacity
77-2400.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 18, 1978.
588 F.2d 913
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: W.D. Virginia (1)

588 F.2d 913

Wesley WHITE, Mazola White, William Price, Wilhelemena
Price, Clarence White, and Wendell A. Hall, Appellants,
and
George J. Gruber, Jr., Beatrice F. Gruber, and Thomas L.
Gruber, Plaintiffs,
v.
Gerald A. KELLER, Superintendent, Maryland Correctional
Institution, individually and in his official
capacity, Appellee.

No. 77-2400.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 15, 1978.
Decided Dec. 18, 1978.

Mary S. Elcano, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, Md. (Richard G. Fishman, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

Henry J. Frankel, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.

Before WINTER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN,[*] Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiffs instituted a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief and damages alleging the invalidity of suspension of a prisoner's future visiting rights for a limited period of time when he is found in possession of contraband (drugs, money or other prohibited articles) immediately following a visit. It was contended that prisoners and members of their family and designated friends have a first amendment right of visitation which was unduly limited since punishment for smuggling and receiving contraband and prevention of future smuggling could be accomplished by less drastic means. Additionally, those of the plaintiffs who wish to visit prisoners assert that they have a right to a hearing which was denied them before their rights of visitation may be restricted.

2

In a thorough and carefully considered opinion, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant, the superintendent of the correctional institution. We think its decision correct and we affirm on its memorandum opinion.

3

AFFIRMED.

*

Walter E. Hoffman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation