green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
21.8 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 · 2 courts ·
…the interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary.
at p. 943
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Taylor v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Imprisoned Citizens Union Herbert Langes Milton Taylor Jack Lopinson MacKey R. Choice Richard O.J. Mayberry Frank Patterson Daniel Delker Harold A.X. Brooks Carline Coefield Thelma Simon Audrey Mason Sharon Wiggins Dominic Codispoti Philip Householder James Harbold Joseph Oliver Paul Lyons Robert Brown James Szulczewski Gerald Mayo Wesley Harris v. Tom Ridge, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, State Capitol Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Martin F. Horn, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections Donald Vaughn, Superintendent of Sci-Graterford David Larkins, Superintendent of Sci-Dallas Mary Leftridge-Byrd, Superintendent of Sci-Muncy Frederick Frank, Superintendent of Sci-Huntingdon Robert Myers, Acting Superintendent of Sci-Rockview and James Price, Superintendent of Sci-Pittsburgh, United States of America, Intervenor in District Court (d.c. No. 70-Cv-03054). Robert Ray George Spears Murry Dicterson Clarence Reynolds George Rivers Albert Johnson James Goldsborough Joseph Ligon Richard Bellamy Emanuel Johnson Gene Fuller James C. Wilson Carlos Rodriguez Willie Brooker Frank Hall v. Donald Vaughn, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, United States of America, Intervenor in D.C. (d.c. No. 71-Cv-00513). Kenneth W. Owens, Jr. Guy J. Bicking James Alan Romberger Kenneth W. Teater v. Custodial Employees and \Private Citizens\"
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Taylor v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lois Jochinto Orta
United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323, 327 (6th Cir. 2010) (“If . . . the district court . . . concludes that it lacks the authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence under the statute, the district court’s determination that the defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.”); United States v. Henry, 983 F.3d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 2020); Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Huguely, 569 F. App’x 360, 360 (6th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Nussle v. Willette, Correction Officer, and Porter, Correction Officer
See, e.g., Miller v. French, —• U.S. -,-, 120 S.Ct. 2246, 2250-51 , 147 L.Ed.2d 326 (2000) (inmate class action initially brought against Indiana prison officials, including superintendent of correctional facility); Ruiz v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 385, 387 (5th Cir.1999) (inmate class action initially brought against Texas prison officials, including director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice and members of Texas Board of Criminal Justice), abrogated by French, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 2246 ; Benjamin, 172 F.3d at 149-50 (seven class actions by pretrial detainees initially brought against New…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cagle v. Hutto
See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 159-165 (2d Cir.1999) (en banc); Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178, 183-89 (3d Cir.1999); Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942-43 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2368 , 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426-27 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2375 , 141 L.Ed.2d 743 (1998); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 , 1085-92 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2374 , 141 L.Ed.2d 741 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cagle v. Hutto
See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 159-165 (2d Cir.1999) (en banc); Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178, 183-89 (3d Cir.1999); Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942-43 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2368 , 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426-27 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 2375 , 141 L.Ed.2d 743 (1998); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 , 1085-92 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 2374 , 141 L.Ed.2d 741 (1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nichols v. Hopper
See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144 , (en banc) (2d Cir.1999); Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178 (3d Cir.1999); Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 2368 , 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998) (the “interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary”); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 , 658 *824 (1st Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 2366 , 141 L.Ed.2d 735 (1998) (the PLRA “does not tamper with the courts’ decis…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hadix v. Johnson
Commenting on this statute, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) has stated that “The interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison cases remain at all times with the judiciary.” Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.1998).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Everett Hadix v. Perry M. Johnson, (96-1851/1908/1943), United States of America, Intervenor (96-1908/1943). United States of America v. State of Michigan, (96-1907)
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
See Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1089 ("The PLRA leaves the judging to judges."); cf. Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.1998) ("[T]he termination provision ... does not dictate the result a court must reach in determining whether relief is warranted.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hadix v. Johnson
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
See Gavin, 122 F.3d at 1089 (“The PLRA leaves the judging to judges.”); cf. Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.1998) (“[T]he termination provision ... does not dictate the result a court must reach in determining whether relief is warranted.
discussed
Cited "see"
Geiger v. Jowers
See Clarke v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 222 , 227 n. 8 (5th Cir.) (suggesting in dictum that monetary relief but not injunctive relief "might be difficult” in light of § 1997e(e)’s physical injury requirement in a § 1983 suit alleging a First Amendment violation), vacated for reh’g en banc, 133 F.3d 940 (5th Cir.1997); Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736 , 747 n. 20 (5th Cir.2002) (declining to reach issue of whether PLRA's physical injury requirement applies to equal protection claims, noting that “[w]e have not considered the application of the PLRA to constitutional violations usually unaccompa…
discussed
Cited "see"
Everett Hadix, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Perry M. Johnson,defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees
(2×)
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 941 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 952 , 118 S.Ct. 2368 , 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nichols v. Haley
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 2368 , 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998) (the “interpretation and application of law to fact and the ultimate resolution of prison condition cases remain at all times with the judiciary”); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 658 (1st Cir. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 2366 , 141 L.Ed.2d 735 (1998) (the PLRA “does not tamper with the courts' decisional rules – that is, courts remain free to interpret and apply the law to the facts as they discern them.
cited
Cited "see"
David B. v. Jess McDonald Director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. Treffinger
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir .1998); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 657 (1st Cir.1997); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 , 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 371-73 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2460 , 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997); Benjamin, supra, at 173 (Section 3626(b)(2) is constitutional but does not terminate decree; only jurisdiction of federal court terminated).
discussed
Cited "see"
Denike v. Fauver
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 943 (6th Cir.1998) (prospective equitable relief in consent decrees remains subject to subsequent changes in the law); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424 , 1426 (11th Cir.1997) (District Court retains jurisdiction to amend consent decrees as significant changes in laws and fact require), petition for cert. filed, (Mar. 2, 1998) (No. 97-8120); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656 (1st Cir.1997) (consent decrees mandating forward-looking injunctions are final judgments subject to revision to the extent required by equity), petition for c…
discussed
Cited "see"
Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 , 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997); Dougan v. Singletary 129 F.3d 1424, 1427 (11th Cir.1997); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 656-57 (1st Cir.1997); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 372 (4th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3309, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4572 Eddie Willie Taylor Michael F.X. Hogan v. United States of America, Intervenor-Appellant, and State of Arizona Terry Stewart, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.1998) (§ 3626(b)(2) does not violate separation of power principles); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997) (same); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 657 (1st Cir.1997) (same); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 , 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997) (same); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 371-73 (4th Cir.1996) (same), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2460 , 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997); Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 173 (Section 3626(b)(2) is constitutional but does not terminate decree; only jurisdiction of federal court termi…
discussed
Cited "see"
Taylor v. United States
See Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir.1998) (§ 3626(b)(2) does not violate separation of power principles); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997) (same); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 657 (1st Cir.1997) (same); Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 , 1088-89 (8th Cir.1997) (same); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 371-73 (4th Cir.1996) (same), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2460 , 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997); Benjamin, 124 F.3d at 173 (Section 3626(b)(2) is constitutional but does not terminate decree; only jurisdiction of federal court terminate…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Benjamin v. Michael Jacobson, Commissioner of the Department of Correction of the City of New York
(2×)
See, e.g., Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940, 942-43 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2368 , 141 L.Ed.2d 737 (1998); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424, 1426 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2375 , 141 L.Ed.2d 743 (1998); Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d at 656-57 ; Gavin v. Branstad, 122 F.3d 1081 , 1089 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2374 , 141 L.Ed.2d 741 (1998); Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 371-72 (4th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1277 , 117 S.Ct. 2460 , 138 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vazquez v. Carver
Compare Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 , 942-43 & n. 3 (6th Cir.1998) (finding no separation-of-powers violation under Plaut or Klein, and suggesting in dicta that there is no denial of due process on vested-rights theory, and no denial of equal protection), petition for cert. filed, - U.S.L.W.-(U.S. Apr. 13, 1998) (No. 97-1693); Dougan v. Singletary, 129 F.3d 1424 , 1426-27 (11th Cir.1997) (finding no separation-of-powers violation under Plaut, no denial of due process on vested-rights theory, and no denial of equal protection), petition for cert. filed, - U.S.L.W.—(U.S. Mar. 2, 1998) (No. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Glover v. Johnson
See also Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.1998) (PLRA is constitutional) 2 It is interesting to note that the district court apparently ignored our decision in that case in an order dated January 31, 1997, on the purported authority of MLB v. SLJ, 519 U.S. 102 , 117 S.Ct. 555 , 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Glover v. Johnson
See also Hadix v. Johnson, 133 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998) (PLRA is constitutional). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles W. Clarke, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
v.
Richard L. Stalder, Richard L. Stalder, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Robert Tanner, Captain Charles Moulard
v.
Richard L. Stalder, Richard L. Stalder, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Robert Tanner, Captain Charles Moulard
96-30313.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 31, 1997.
Published
Charles W. CLARKE, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
v.
Richard L. STALDER, et al., Defendants,
Richard L. Stalder, et al., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
Robert Tanner, Defendant-Appellee,
Captain Charles Moulard, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 96-30313.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 31, 1997.
Terry Edward Allbritton, Appellate Advocacy Program, Tulane Law School, New Orleans, LA, Jane L. Johnson, Tulane Law Clinic, New Orleans, LA, for Clarke.
Cary A Des Roches, Fraser & Des Roches, New Orleans, LA, Richard A. Fraser, III, Gelpi, Sullivan, Carroll & Gibbens, New Orleans, LA, for Stalder.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Alma L. Chasez, United States Magistrate Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion September 9, 1997, 5 Cir., 1997, 121 F.3d 222)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHE, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
[*~940]1
A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
[*~942]2
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.