Washington v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
35 F.3d 1093 · 1994
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Systems, Inc. (1997), Wilson v. Yaklich (1998)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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 18 U.S.C. § 4007 · 31 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on Turner v. Safley · Procunier v. Martinez · Califano v. Yamasaki · Thornburgh v. Abbott · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the preliminary injunction will succeed on the merits of the claim; (2) whether the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm without the grant of the extraordinary relief; (3) the probability that granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest is advanced by the issuance of the injunction.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a prisoner's right to telephone access is 'subject to rational limitations in the face of legitimate security interests of the penal institution' ") (quoting Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744 , 747 (9th Cir.1986)); see also Feeley v. Sampson, 570 F.2d 364 , 374 (1st Cir.1978) (stating that the right of pretrial detainees to make telephone calls, while "not free from doubt[,]”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard.”
5 later decisions 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.