Magluta v. Fp Samples W’s Empirical Analysis
375 F.3d 1269 · 2004
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Arar v. Ashcroft (2009), Surprenant v. Rivas (2005)
13 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Bell v. Wolfish
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“States may ... create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause ... But these interests will generally be limited to freedom from restraint which ... imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate ... ”); see also Magluta, 375 F.3d at 1282 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether a condition of pretrial detention amounts to punishment turns on whether the condition is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is incident to some legitimate government purpose.”
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.