Moss v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Project Release v. Prevost (1983), Robles v. Ta Coughlin Hj Robles (1983)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Furman v. Georgia · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Wood v. Strickland · Woodson v. North Carolina
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although being deprived of one or two meals might not be cruel and unusual punishment, prison officials cannot impose such severe sanctions for breaking a disciplinary rule, as occurred in the instant case, on prisoners when there is no showing that the prisoner is engaging in the conduct the rule is designed to prevent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The corrections officers attempted to obtain the pipe by talking to plaintiff before they gassed him, and warned plaintiff that he would be gassed if he did not turn it over. The only other means of obtaining the pipe would have been to enter the cell, and that could have led to physical contact between plaintiff and the guards. Under these circumstances the use of the particular force being applied was not unreasonable. Accord, Beishir v. Swenson [ 331 F.Supp. 1227 ], supra. See, Collins v. Schoonfield, 363 F.Supp. 1152 (D.Md.1973); Holt v. Hutto, supra [ 363 F.Supp. 194 ]. See, also, Long v. Harris, 332 F.Supp. 262 , 270 (D.Kan.), aff’d. per curiam, 473 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Iron County“is a per se violation of a prisoner's Eighth 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.