Battle v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Ramos v. Lamm (1980), Spain v. Procunier (1979)
34 federal appellate · 16 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000H
Relies on United States v. O'Brien · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Procunier v. Martinez · Robinson v. State of California · Cruz v. Beto
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a necessary corollary of that right, prison officials have an affirmative duty to make available to inmates a level of medical care which is reasonably designed to meet the routine and emergency health care needs of inmates.” 376 F.Supp. at 424 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To be meaningful, the right of access to the courts must include the means to frame and present legal issues and relevant facts effectively for judicial consideration. Battle I , at 426.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e hold that censorship of prisoner mail is justified if the following criteria are met. First, the regulation or practice in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. Prison officials . . . must show that a regulation authorizing mail censorship furthers one or more of the substantial governmental interests of security, order, and rehabilitation. Second, the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved.”
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.