Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 434 FSUPP 1007 - Chapman v. Rhodes

Chapman v. Rhodes’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
June 1990
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1990 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), Rhodes v. Chapman (1981)

13 federal appellate · 10 district ·

320197719801990decided

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 Estelle v. Gamble · Procunier v. Martinez · Weems v. United States · Holt v. Sarver · Holt v. Sarver

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

  1. “'unquestionably a top-flight, first-class facility,'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “jobs by assigning more inmates to each job than necessary and by reducing the number of hours that each inmate worked, id. , at 1015; it also found that SOCF had not increased its staff of psychiatrists and social workers since double celling had begun. 9 Despite these generally favorable findings, the District Court concluded that double celling at SOCF was cruel and unusual punishment. The court rested its conclusion on five considerations. One, inmates at SOCF are serving long terms of imprisonment. In the court's view, that fact”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The question is constantly stated as one of ascertaining the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of the particular case and then inquiring into whether the totality as determined is intolerant or shocking to the conscience, or barbaric or totally unreasonable in the light of the ever changing modern conscience.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.