Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 F.3d 183 - Canedy v. Boardman

Canedy v. Boardman’s Empirical Analysis

16 F.3d 183 · 1994

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Cheffer v. Reno (1995), Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo (2009)

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

4801994200020102020decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Hudson v. Palmer · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey

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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'It is settled now ... that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's ... bodily integrity.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country. Imprisonment, however, necessarily entails that an inmate lose many of the rights ordinary citizens enjoy. Furthermore, prisons must be able to curtail a prisoner’s constitutional rights not only to further correctional goals, such as retribution or deterrence, but also to serve institutional objectives, the most basic of which is the internal security of the prisons themselves. We base our review of prison discretion upon the recognition that a prisoner’s liberty interests are significantly restricted by the fact of his incarceration, and that prison officials must have broad discretion to dictate policies that promote order and safety for inmates and correctional staff.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If female guards are to be given equal opportunity for employment and promotion, it is necessary to allow them to observe male prisoners and conduct searches just as male officers would. To exclude females from observing or participating in all aspects of guard work could prevent them from gaining the experience they need to advance to higher positions, and bar them from assuming those positions that require monitoring of inmate searches or other activities in which inmates are unclothed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.