Fraise v. Terhune’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.3d 506 · 2002
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Johnson v. California (2005), Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington (2012)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Turner v. Safley · Sandin v. Conner · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Hewitt v. Helms
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.
“first, whether the regulation bears a “valid, rational connection” to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective; second, whether prisoners have alternative ways of exercising the circumscribed right; third, whether accommodating the right would have a deleterious impact on other inmates, guards, and the allocation of prison resources generally; and fourth, whether alternatives exist that “fully accommodate[] the prisoner’s rights at de min-imis cost to valid penological interests.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. at 519. The Fraise prison regulations allowed New Jersey correctional officers to designate security threat groups (STGs) and transfer core members to a special unit where their ability to”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Torres v. Fauver · Sutton“As long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is within the sentence imposed upon him and is not otherwise violative of the Constitution, the Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an inmate’s treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Powell v. Weiss · Torres v. Fauver
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.