Tanney v. Boles’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Foman v. Davis · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Turner v. Safley · Sandin v. Conner
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The fact that Plaintiffs phone privileges were temporarily restricted does not implicate a constitutional or statutory right. While inmates have a First Amendment right to communicate with family and friends, they do not have a constitutional or statutory right ,to unlimited or unrestricted telephone access. Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1100 (6th Cir.1994); Niece v. Fitzner (“Niece 7”), 922 F.Supp. 1208 , 1218 n. 8 (E.D.Mich.1996). Plaintiffs ¡claim that the • restriction was imposed based on false, charges does not elevate his claim to a constitutional level.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leavitt v. Carter
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.