Cavey v. Levine’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2000
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Wood v. Strickland · Procunier v. Martinez · Rizzo v. Goode · Pell v. Procunier
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We start with the familiar proposition that “[l]awful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 [ 68 S.Ct. 1049 , 92 L.Ed. 1356 ] (1948). See also Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321 [ 92 S.Ct. 1079 , 31 L.Ed.2d 263 ] (1972). In the First Amendment context a corollary of this principle is that a prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. Thus, challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with due process of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“by deliberately ordering the institution of disciplinary proceedings against [the inmate], brought into play a form of censorship calculated to restrain Cavey from any further attempts to communicate his version of the McMahon suicide incident . utilizpng] prison regulations in a manner violative of plaintiff’s First Amendment 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.