359 F. Supp. 2d 370 - Williams v. Bitner’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he few courts to consider the precise question have uniformly held that prison officials must respect and accommodate, when practicable, a Muslim inmate's religious beliefs regarding prohibitions on the handling of pork.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Bitner“was placed in the unenviable position of choosing between punishment by prison officials or observance of religious teachings. This is the type of choice that the RLUIPA was enacted to prevent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]ecisions from the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirm [the principles that support Williams's First Amendment claim], albeit in different factual scenarios.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Bitner
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.