39 Md. App. 217 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Title: Inmate Mail Purpose: To provide Policy and Procedure for Incoming and Outgoing Mail 1. Policy and Procedure: a. All outgoing inmate mail may be sealed. b. All incoming mail will be opened for inspection before delivery to the inmate. c. All outgoing correspondence must bear the name and address of the sender and the receiver. Incoming mail will be inspected for contraband and subject to additional review to determine appropriateness. Such mail will be returned to the sender, if in the opinion of the institution, such mail falls into one of the following categories: (1) Inflammatory or advocates escape, violence, disorder, or assault. (2) Directly or indirectly threatens the security, safety, or order of the institution or its personnel. (3) Contains coded or otherwise undecipherable language that prevents the adequate review of the material. d. Packages may be received only when prior written approval has been given; any package received without such approval shall be refused and returned to the sender.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. State

2. “"The rationale for permitting more extensive interference with the free flow of communication between inmates, particularly material enclosed in sealed envelopes, is self-evident. The potential for mischief-escape, riot, passage of contraband, disturbance, defiance of authority, injury to correctional staff or other inmates-is infinitely greater from unfettered correspondence among inmates than it is from correspondence with persons outside the institution. Accordingly, there is a more significant identifiable governmental interest in regulating that exchange than there is in controlling external correspondence (particularly that from the inmate), thereby necessitating a greater permissible invasion of an inmate's 'right' of privacy."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perry v. State