Wolf v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “is insufficient for evaluating the application of Turner' s first prong. Id. Finally, we rejected the government's contention that such a connection could always be found without an evidentiary hearing: 10 While the connection may be a matter of common sense in certain instances, such that a ruling on this issue based only on the pleadings may be appropriate, there may be situations in which the connection is not so apparent and does require some factual development. Whether the requisite connection may be found solely on the basis of”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prison Legal News v. Stolle · Brittain v. Beard

2. “[i]n relation to the first factor, the [District] Court’s opinion was deficient in that it never stated or described the interest purportedly served by the prison policy, nor did it determine whether the interest was neutral and legitimate. The government offered several theories in general terms at different times, but the District Court opinion did not mention or discuss any such theories or interests. We cannot tell, for instance, whether the Court credited the government’s assertion that the movies posed security risks, or that the absence of such movies deterred people from committing crimes, or that denial of such movies fosters rehabilitation. Moreover, the District Court did not discuss how any of the particular interests offered by the government were “rationally connected to” the restrictions on movies rated R or NC-17.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 420 F. Supp. 2d 406 - Jewell v. Gonzales

3. “foremost in the sense that a rational connection is a threshold requirement—if the connection is arbitrary or irrational, then `the regulation fails, irrespective of whether the other factors tilt in its favor' ... But, as we made clear in DeHart, we do not view it as subsuming the rest of the inquiry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Sutton