McGinnis v. Royster’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
271 federal appellate · 119 district · 457 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,170 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977)
271 federal appellate · 119 district · 457 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.
Relationships
Relies on Dandridge v. Williams · South Carolina v. Katzenbach · Lindsey v. Normet · Palmer v. Thompson
Cited together with Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Wolff v. McDonnell · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher
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 1,170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he determination of an optimal time for parole eligibility elicited multiple legislative classifications and groupings”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“". . . As the statute and regulations contemplate state evaluation of an inmate's progress toward rehabilitation, in awarding good time, it is reasonable not to award such time for pretrial detention in a county jail where no systematic rehabilitative programs exist and where the prisoner's conduct and performance are not even observed and evaluated by the responsible state prison officials. Further, it would hardly be appropriate for the State to undertake in the pretrial detention period programs to rehabilitate a man still clothed with a presumption of innocence. In short, an inmate in county jail is neither under the supervision of the State Correction Department nor participating in the State's rehabilitative programs. Where there is no evaluation by state officials and little or no rehabilitative participation for anyone to evaluate, there is a rational justification for declining to give good-time credit." 410 U.S. 263, 271 , 93 S.Ct. 1055, 1060 , 35 L.Ed.2d 282 .”
11 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.