Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2006 ND 78 - Larson v. Schuetzle

Larson v. Schuetzle’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2007
most recently cited

1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Turner v. Safley · Ward v. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department · Kines v. Day · Seymour X. Cotton, Jr. v. A. L. Lockhart, Etc.

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

  1. ““[M]aintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). “ ‘[C]entral to all other corrections goals is the institutional consideration of internal security within the corrections facilities themselves.’ ” Id. at 546-47 , [ 441 U.S. 520 ] 99 S.Ct. 1861 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 447 ]. “Prison officials must be free to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of inmates and corrections personnel and to prevent escape or unauthorized entry.” Id. at 547 , [ 441 U.S. 520 ] 99 S.Ct. 1861 [ 60 L.Ed.2d 447 ]. Prison administrators are entitled to deference in the adoption and execution of policies intended “to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.