Tyler v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
135 F.3d 594 · 1998
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Miller Superintendent Pendleton Correctional Facility v. French (2000), Castillo v. Cameron County (2001)
15 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (§ 20409 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools Independent School District No 89 Oklahoma County Oklahoma v. L Dowell · Plyler v. Moore · United States v. Redmon · Dougan v. Singletary
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plaintiffs' argument goes to the question of "[t]he proper evidentiary methods and materials that a district court may utilize in deciding a § 3626(b)(2) motion." ... We addressed, but did not resolve, this question in a previous opinion concerning the constitutionality of the PLRA's automatic stay provision. In that decision, we explained: Michigan ... contends that under the statute a motion for immediate termination of a consent decree must be considered on the record existing at the time the motion was filed, disallowing the district judge to engage in supplemental fact-finding. The state supports its argument by § 3626(b)(3)'s directive that "[p]rospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record " ... that relief remains necessary and narrowly drawn. That language, the inmates respond, does not mean simply the existing record at the time the motion was filed. Rather, the statute necessarily enables a district judge to examine current conditions at the prisons which become part of the judicial record, since the very task before the judge is to ascertain the existence of "a current or ongoing violation" of a federal right. As the state would have it, the district court would be forbidden from supplementing the past record in a case to determine whether a current constitutional violation exists.... We believe this debate is premature at this juncture and should await appellate review of the lower courts' actual rulings on the t”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ruiz · Castillo v. Cameron County
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.