Landman v. Royster’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 28 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 216 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2009 · most notably Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), United States v. Bailey (1980)
78 federal appellate · 28 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Gault · Shapiro v. Thompson · Sherbert v. Verner · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy
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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he pains of hunger constitute a dull, prolonged sort of corporal punishment. That marked physical effects ensue is evident from the numerous instances of substantial weight loss during solitary confinement. * # # * * * The practice [of imposing a bread and water diet] is therefore both generally disapproved and obsolescent even within this penal system. It is not seriously defended as essential to security. It amounts therefore to an unnecessary infliction of pain. Furthermore, as a technique designed to break a man’s spirit not just by denial of physical comforts but of necessities, to the end that his powers of resistance diminish, the bread and water diet is inconsistent with current minimum standards of respect for human dignity. The Court has no difficulty in determining that it is a violation of the eighth amendment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Deprivations of benefits of various sorts may be used so long as they are related to some * * * [valid penal] objective and substantial deprivations are administered with due process. ‘Security’ or ‘rehabilitation’ are not shibboleths to justify any treatment.” 333 F.Supp. at 645 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The objections to the application of some vagueness principle may all be met simply by relaxing the standard somewhat in deference to the state’s legitimate needs, rather than by abandoning it. . . .” 333 F.Supp. at 656 .”
3 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.