Herman Jackson, Jr. v. James B. Godwin, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.2d 529 · 1968
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2010 · most notably Procunier v. Martinez (1974), Procunier v. Navarette (1978)
63 federal appellate · 15 district · 13 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
Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · United States v. O'Brien · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must strongly show some substantial and controlling interest which requires the subordination or limitation”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘ [I]t is well established that prisoners do not lose all their constitutional rights and that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment follow them into prison and protect them there from unconstitutional action on the part of prison authorities carried out under the color of state law. [citing cases].’ Washington v. Lee, 263 F.Supp. 327, 331 (M.D.Ala.1966), aff’d. per curiam 390 U.S. 333 , 88 S.Ct. 994 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 .” Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1968).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Acceptance of the fact that incarceration, because of inherent administrative problems, may necessitate the withdrawal of many rights and jirivileges does not preclude recognition by the courts of a duty to protect the prisoner from unlawful and onerous treatment of a nature that, of itself, adds punitive measures to those legally meted out by the court.””
2 later decisions 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.