Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 F.2d 680 - Smith v. Schneckloth

Smith v. Schneckloth’s Empirical Analysis

414 F.2d 680 · 1969

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
4
states following
March 1991
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 1991 · most notably Sostre v. McGinnis (1971), 437 F. Supp. 269 - Laaman v. Helgemoe (1977)

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

2801969197019801990decided

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 Trop v. Dulles · Lee v. Washington · Houghton v. Shafer · Jackson v. Bishop · Verdugo v. United States

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

  1. “[p]rison conditions are only unconstitutional if they deprive inmates of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.' " The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second suit. Valenzuela appeals these orders and we affirm. 10 The policy requiring inmates to be clean-shaven in order to enter the dining area does not deprive inmates of food. Valenzuela presents no evidence that he had no means of complying with the policy. 1 Furthermore, "correctional authorities have wide discretion in matters of internal prison administration and ... reasonable action within the scope of this discretion does not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights.”
    1 later decision 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.