Monroe v. Bombard’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1997 · most notably Goulden v. Oliver Et Al. (1979), 437 F. Supp. 269 - Laaman v. Helgemoe (1977)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Wisconsin v. Yoder · Procunier v. Martinez
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But even if the institutional purpose [in prohibiting beards] is legitimate and substantial, ‘that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.’ Shelton v. Tucker, [ 364 U.S. 479, 488 , 81 S.Ct. 247, 252 , 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960) ], Procunier v. Martinez, [ 416 U.S. 396, 413 , 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1811 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) ].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In sum, the various rationales for a no-beard rule posited by the state will not support the concomitant constitutional infringement on certain inmates’ free exercise of their religion. “Justifications founded only on fear and apprehension are insufficient to overcome rights asserted under the First Amendment.” Teterud v. Burns, supra, 522 F.2d at 361-362 . See Tinker v. Des Moines Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508-09 , 89 S.Ct. 733 , 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). The proof adduced at the various hearings leaves me with no doubt that the institutional requirements of Greenhaven Prison with respect to security and prisoner identification can reasonably be met through other viable and less restrictive means than the absolute ban on the wearing of beards by inmates. As such, Regulation 2.5 of the Greenhaven Correctional Facility, to the extent that it prohibits its Sunni Muslims at the prison from growing beards in conformity with their religious beliefs, is violative of the First Amendment. Since the no-beard rule at Greenhaven, as applied to Sunni Muslims, is not justified by any “important or substantial government interest”, see Kahane v. Carlson, supra, 527 F.2d [492] at 495 n. 6, its operation must be enjoined.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Needless to say, in granting to inmates the right to wear beards out of religious conviction, the state is entitled to scrutinize the sincerity and bona fides of those prisoners seeking to avail themselves of the entitlement, and to reject the claims of those prisoners which are obvious shams.”
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.