Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.3d 144 - Benjamin v. Jacobson

Benjamin v. Jacobson’s Empirical Analysis

172 F.3d 144 · 1999

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Miller Superintendent Pendleton Correctional Facility v. French (2000), Harris v. Commissioner of Correction (2004)

42 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

4901999200020102020decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2403

Relies on Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Wolff v. McDonnell · Edelman v. Jordan · Blum v. Stenson · Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

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

  1. “makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[p]rospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[e]vidence presented at a prior time . . . could not show a violation that is `current and ongoing.' Hence, the `record' referred to [in S 3626(b)(3) ] cannot mean the prior record but must mean a record reflecting conditions as of the time termination is sought.”
    4 later decisions 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.