Boles v. Neet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) whether a rational connection exists between the prison policy regulation and a legitimate governmental interest advanced as its justification; (2) whether alternative means of exercising the right are available notwithstanding the policy or regulation; (3) what effect accommodating the exercise of the right would have on guards, other prisoners, and prison resources generally; and (4) whether ready, easy-to-implement alternatives exist that would accommodate the prisoner’s rights.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kay v. Bemis · Al-Owhali v. Holder

2. “.. .we are mindful of the delicate balance that has been recognized between prisoners’ constitutional guarantees and the legitimate concerns of prison administrators. In O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 , 107 S.Ct. 2400 , 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), the Supreme Court acknowledged that although “[ljawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights,” id. at 348 , 107 S.Ct. 2400 (quotation omitted), convicted prisoners nonetheless “retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion,” id. (citation omitted). The Court emphasized, however, that in evaluating a challenged prison regulation, appropriate deference must be afforded to prison administrators “who are actually-charged with and trained in the running of the particular institution under examination.” id. at 349 , 107 S.Ct. 2400 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the Court distinguished prison regulations from other laws alleged to violate fundamental constitutional rights, holding that the former must be judged under a less restrictive reasonableness test: “‘[WJhen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’ ” Id. (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 524 F. Supp. 2d 1313 - Wares v. Simmons

3. “striking the right balance is crucial to the qualified immunity analysis. Too general a formulation would convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights. On the other hand, defining the constitutional right too narrowly would render the defense available to all public officials except in those rare cases in which a precedential case existed which was on all fours factually with the case at bar.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Conner v. Rodriguez