Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 197 F.3d 348 - Frost v. Symington

Frost v. Symington’s Empirical Analysis

197 F.3d 348 · 1999

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
1
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably John Armstrong v. Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California (2001), Sorrels v. McKee (2002)

21 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

5501999200020102020decided

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 · Thornburgh v. Abbott · Block v. Rutherford · Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department · Margolis v. Ryan

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. “`present enough counter-evidence to show that the connection is not so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621 , 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1060 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90 , and Amatel, 156 F.3d at 200-01 ). On the other hand, when the inmate does not present enough evidence to refute a common-sense connection between a prison regulation and the objective that government's counsel argues the policy was designed to further, Mauro applies and, presuming the governmental objective is legitimate and neutral, see Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 414 , Turner's first prong is satisfied. 33 In this instance Arizona's government has put forward three justifications for the challenged regulations: (1) They are necessary”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.