Meyers v. Alldredge’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 296 · 1974
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), Avant v. Clifford (1975)
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 4001 · 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (Prison Camera Reform Act of 2021) · 18 U.S.C. § 4161 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Chaffin v. Stynchcombe · Gregory v. City of Chicago · Sostre v. McGinnis
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Court is reluctant to enmesh itself in the day-to-day operations of a penal institution, especially in matters relating to discipline and internal administration. Instead, the Court is convinced this issue is sufficiently disposed of by the language of Circuit Judge Van Dusen ...: Due process undoubtedly requires certain minimal standards of specificity in prison regulations, but we reject the view that the degree of specificity required of such regulations is as strict in every instance as that required of ordinary criminal sanctions. This results from the fundamental difference between normal society and prison society. The maintenance of strict security and discipline, with its unfortunate but unavoidable circumscription of an inmates’s freedom to act, is essential to safe and efficient prison administration.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wolfel v. Morris · Lane v. Salazar“The objections to the application of some vagueness principle may all be met simply by relaxing the standard somewhat in deference to the state's legitimate needs, rather than by abandoning it. The Court concludes, therefore, that the existence of some reasonably definite rule is a prerequisite to prison discipline of any substantial sort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gaston v. Taylor“the requirement of an impartial tribunal prohibits only those officials who have a direct personal or otherwise substantial involvement, such as major participation in a judgmental or decision-making role, in the circumstances underlying the charge from sitting on the disciplinary body.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rhodes v. Robinson
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.