438 F. Supp. 110 - White v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “It is the further opinion of this court that the Supreme Court itself has suggested there is no general right to prison visitation for either the prisoners or the public. In Pell v. Procunier [ 417 U.S. 817 , 94 S.Ct. 2800 , 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974)] ... the Court held that prisoners have no constitutional right to visit with members of the press and that members of the press have no constitutional right to visit with selected prisoners. Although the Court’s principal concern was freedom of expression — press and speech — rather than freedom of association, the result was nonetheless that the two groups had no right to visit with each other. Implicit in the Court’s opinion is that prisoners have no right to associate face-to-face with any particular member of the public, and members of the public have no right to so associate with any particular prisoner_ The foregoing clearly explains why this court believes there is no right among prisoners to receive visitors. The court believes that the non-existence of a right among would-be visitors to visit prisoners is a necessary corollary whose justification is apparent by resort to the reductio ad absurdwn.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bazzetta v. McGinnis

2. “[i]n any event, whether visitation is a right or not, it is at best a non-fundamental right, and hence may not only be restricted, but may be restricted by other than the least drastic means.” 438 F.Supp. at 118 . 8 . On an issue related to visitation in prison, we also have held that an inmate does not have a constitutional right to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Ozmint

3. “Perhaps the most obvious of the First Amendment rights that are necessarily curtailed by confinement are those associational rights that the First Amendment protects outside of prison walls. The concept of incarceration itself entails a restriction on the freedom of inmates to associate with those outside of the penal institution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 466 F. Supp. 56 - Fennell v. Carlson