Shimer v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis
100 F.3d 506 · 1996
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably John Armstrong v. Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California (2001), Hall v. Washington (1997)
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Warth v. Seldin · Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Turner v. Safley
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether a valid, rational connection exists between the regulation and a legitimate government interest behind the rule; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the right in question; (3) what impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right would have on guards, other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) what easy alternatives exist to the regulation because, although the regulation need not satisfy a least restrictive alternatives test, the existence of obvious alternatives may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable.[ 22 ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riker v. Lemmon · Kemp v. Liebel“We ... are reduced to speculation when not provided with evidence, and, having speculated, find it difficult to establish a connection between the prison administration's unsubstantiated justifications and its policy of prohibiting correctional employees from contacting the Prisoner Review Board on behalf of prisoners.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Akers v. Mcginnis · Akers
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.