Johnson v. Avery’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
979 federal appellate · 223 district · 444 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,695 later decisions (78 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), North Carolina v. Pearce (1969)
979 federal appellate · 223 district · 444 state decisions — followed in 41 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedJohnson v. Avery (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Fay v. Noia · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Ex parte Hull
Cited together with Bounds v. Smith · Wolff v. McDonnell · Procunier v. Martinez · Ex parte Hull · Younger v. Gilmore
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 2,695 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“unless and until the State provides some reasonable alternative to assist inmates in the preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief, it may not validly enforce a regulation ... barring inmates from furnishing such assistance to other prisoners.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Tennessee urges, however, that the contested regulation in this case is justified as part of the State's disciplinary administration of the prisons. There is no doubt that discipline and administration of state detention facilities are state functions. They are subject to federal authority only where paramount federal constitutional or statutory rights supervene. It is clear, however, that in instances where state regulations applicable to inmates of prison facilities conflict with such rights, the regulations may be invalidated.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'it is fundamental that access of prisoners to the courts for the purpose of presenting their complaints may not be denied or obstructed.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bounds v. Smith · Doe v. Schneider
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.