Beishir v. Swenson’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1995
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Robinson v. State of California · Trop v. Dulles · Weems v. United States · McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Neither can it be said to be unreasonable to resort to the judicious use of mace to regain control and establish order after lesser means have failed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An • application of the announced standards' clearly indicates plaintiff was not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. This conclusion is reached irrespective of which of the [cases defining cruel and unusual punishment] is applied. Certainly the placement of plaintiff in a seclusion cell and exposure to chemical mace, after all lesser methods to regain control failed, does not constitute punishment of such character as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness. Nor is this a case where a prisoner has been subjected to physical and mental abuse or corporal punishment disproportionate to the offense for which it was imposed. Likewise, it cannot be said that the defendants, in pursuit of a legitimate penal purpose, namely, to prevent spread of inmate rebellion and to restore order, used force beyond what was necessary to achieve that vital purpose.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Breece v. Swenson“1. Whether the punishment in question is of such a character as to shock the general conscience or to be intolerable in fundamental fairness. Such judgment is to be made in light of developing concepts of decency. 2. Whether the punishment is greatly disproportionate to the offenses for which it is imposed. 3. Whether the punishment, although applied pursuant to a legitimate penal aim, goes beyond that aim; that is, when a punishment is unnecessarily cruel in view of the purpose for which it is used.”
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.