Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 F.3d 208 - Richard Waterman

Richard Waterman’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Sutton, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1068 - Aiello v. Litscher (2000)

2 district · 2 state decisions

1901999200020102020decided

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

Relies on Turner v. Safley · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Kolender v. Lawson · Procunier v. Martinez · Thornhill v. Alabama

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.

  1. “[Turner ] directs courts to assess the overall reasonableness of such regulations by weighing four factors. “First, there must be a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it,” and this connection must not be “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Second, a court must consider whether inmates retain alternative means of exercising the circumscribed right. Third, a court must take into account the costs that accommodating the right would impose on other inmates, guards, and prison resources generally. And fourth, a court must consider whether there are alternatives to the regulation that “fully accommodate[ ] the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “b. An inmate sentenced to a period of confinement in the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center shall not receive, possess, distribute or exhibit within the center sexually oriented material, as defined in subsection a. of this section. Upon the discovery of any such material within the center, the commissioner shall provide for its removal and destruction, subject to a departmental appeal procedure for the withholding or removal of such material from the inmate's possession. c. The commissioner shall request an inmate sentenced to confinement in the center to acknowledge in writing the requirements of this act prior to the enforcement of its provisions. Any inmate who violates the provisions of subsection b. of this section shall be subject to on-the-spot sanctions pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the commissioner.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(b)Materials containing a depiction or description of sexual activity or an associated anatomical area shall not be considered “sexually oriented” unless the material is predominantly oriented to such depictions or descriptions. (c) A newspaper, magazine or other similar publication shall not be considered predominantly oriented to the depiction or description of sexual activity or associated anatomical area unless the publication features or contains such descriptions or displays on a routine or regular basis or promotes itself based upon such depictions in the case of individual one-time issues.”
    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.