green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
8.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1995 ·
…uveniles ... who have not been convicted of crimes, have a due process interest in freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint which entitles them to closer scrutiny of their conditions of confinement than that accorded convicted criminals.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
James L. Devine v. Herman Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, and Mark v. Meierhenry, Attorney General, State of South Dakota
See Klein v. Harris, 667 F.2d 274, 291 (2nd Cir.1981); but see U.S. v. Crowder, 719 F.2d 166, 172-13 (6th Cir.1983) cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); Harry-man v. Estelle, 616 F.2d 870, 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860 , 101 S.Ct. 161 , 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Opinion No.
uveniles . . . who have not been convicted of crimes, have a due process interest in freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint which entitles them to closer scrutiny of their conditions of confinement than that accorded convicted criminals.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
A.J., by His Mother and Next Friend, L.B., on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. David Kierst, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Juvenile Officer Jim Morrison, in His Official Capacity as Director of Residential Services Sherman Williams, in His Official Capacity as Director of Detention Judge Edith L. Messina, in Her Official Capacity as Chief Administrative Officer of Juvenile Detention and as Judge of the Juvenile Division of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, (Two Cases)
uveniles ... who have not been convicted of crimes, have a due process interest in freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint which entitles them to closer scrutiny of their conditions of confinement than that accorded convicted criminals.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
A.J. ex rel. L.B. v. Kierst
uveniles ... who have not been convicted of crimes, have a due process interest in freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint which entitles them to closer scrutiny of their conditions of confinement than that accorded convicted criminals.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hayes
United States v. Primrose, 718 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct.. 2352, 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Slaughter v. Parker
See United States v. Crowder, 719 F.2d 166, 171-172 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); Hockenbury v. Sowders, 718 F.2d 155, 156-159 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 975 , 104 S.Ct. 2354 , 80 L.Ed.2d 826 (1984) (discussing Anderson in the context of habeas corpus proceedings).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alexander S. Ex Rel. Bowers v. Boyd
See generally Santana v. Collazo, 533 F.Supp. 966, 972 (D.P.R.1982) (discussing the development of the "right to treatment” theories, although eventually rejecting them), aff'd, 714 F.2d 1172 (1st Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bates
See State v. Kindem, 338 N.W.2d 9, 17-18 (Minn.1983) (citing planning as an aggravating factor), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); Minn.Sent.Guidelines II.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Petrich
See State v. Kindem, 338 N.W.2d 9, 16-17 (Minn.1983), cert denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bock
See State v. Kindem, 338 N.W.2d 9, 17 (Minn.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984) (“immense amount of planning to determine when the victim would be most vulnerable” considered an aggravating factor warranting departure).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mora
See United States v. Primrose, 718 F.2d 1484, 1491-92 (10th Cir.1983) (defendant’s prior acts admissible to establish foundation for conspiracy), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); United States v. Ricardo, 619 F.2d 1124, 1131 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1063 , 101 S.Ct. 789 , 66 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lazaro Mora, United States of America v. Jose Duarte, United States of America v. Ruben Forcade, United States of America v. Carlos Amador
See United States v. Primrose, 718 F.2d 1484, 1491-92 (10th Cir.1983) (defendant's prior acts admissible to establish foundation for conspiracy), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); United States v. Ricardo, 619 F.2d 1124, 1131 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1063 , 101 S.Ct. 789 , 66 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Anthony J. Bucci, Sr. And Ronald H. Glantz
See United States v. Boston, 718 F.2d 1511, 1516-17 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe Ex Rel. Roe v. Gaughan
See Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, 1176 (1st Cir.1983), cert. denied — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984) (society may legitimately confine individuals solely to protect itself from them).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gerald Wayne Phelps v. Jack R. Duckworth, Warden, Indiana State Prison, and Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana
(2×)
See United States v. Crowder, 719 F.2d 166 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984) (No Doyle violation where prosecutor brought to jury’s attention fact that defendant continued to stick to detailed exculpatory story he had given to police following his arrest); Hockenbury v. Sowders, 718 F.2d 155 (6th Cir.1983) (permissible for prosecutor to point out that defendant’s alibi was first offered at trial when defendant’s trial testimony was inconsistent with his post-arrest statement that he did not remember where he was at the time the crimes were com…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dodson v. Reno
Id.; see also Santana v. Collazo, 714 F.2d 1172, 1179 (1st Cir.1983) (“courts that have examined the confinement of adults in prison isolation cells have been reluctant to find them unconstitutional, based either on the length of confinement or on the possibility that isolation might cause psychiatric deterioration.”), cer t. denied, 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Chester Vernon Zeigler, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
The Act outlaws such interference ‘in any way or degree.’ ” Id. at 215 , 80 S.Ct. at 272 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a)); see also United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371, 373 , 98 S.Ct. 1112, 1113 , 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978) (rejecting any limitation of the Hobbs Act to “racketeering” only and concluding that words used by Congress in the Act “do not lend themselves to restrictive interpretation.”) , 1 A. Effectr-Onr-Commerce Requirement In accordance with the plain language of the statute, this court has held that the jurisdictional predicate of the Hobbs Act can be satisfied by a sh…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Luis Anthony Rivera
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Boston, 718 F.2d 1511, 1515 (10th Cir.1983), cert. den. 466 U.S. 974 , 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 , rehearing den. 467 U.S. 1268 , 104 S.Ct. 3563 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 [in indictment for violation of the Hobbs Act, in which interference with commerce is an essential element, it is not necessary for the indictment to allege the exact nature of the interference with commerce].
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerald Wayne Phelps v. Jack R. Duckworth, Warden Indiana State Prison, and Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana
(2×)
See also United States v. Crowder, 719 F.2d 166, 170-172 (6th Cir.1983), certiorari denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 ; Hockenbury v. Sowders, 718 F.2d 155, 158-159 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Dixon, 593 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir.1979), certiorari denied, 444 U.S. 861 , 100 S.Ct. 126 , 62 L.Ed.2d 82 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Espinosa
See United States v. Whitt, 718 F.2d 1494, 1496-99 (10th Cir.1983); see also United States v. Boston, 718 F.2d 1511, 1517 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); United States v. Primrose, 718 F.2d 1484, 1488-89 (10th Cir.1983), ce rt. denied, — U.S. ---, 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Espinosa
See United States v. Whitt, 718 F.2d 1494, 1496-99 (10th Cir.1983); see also United States v. Boston, 718 F.2d 1511, 1517 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); United States v. Primrose, 718 F.2d 1484, 1488-89 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2352 , 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Primrose
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 83-1694.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 14, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (2) · Arkansas Attorney General Repo… (1)
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.