Berrigan v. Sigler’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.2d 514 · 1974
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Phillips v. Bureau of Prisons (1979), Miller Brewing Company v. Jos Schlitz Brewing Co (1979)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Shapiro v. Thompson · New York Times Company v. United States · Zemel v. Rusk · Kleindienst v. Mandel
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The decision of a trial ... court to grant or deny a preliminary injunction does not constitute the law of the case for the purposes of further proceedings and does not limit or preclude the parties from litigating the merits....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. William G. Wilcox, D.O., P.C. Employees' Defined Benefit Pension Trust and William G. Wilcox, D.O., P.C., and Counterclaim (88-1008) v. United States of America, and Counterclaim v. Rubenstein, Isaacs, Bordman & Lax Corporation, Counterclaim Lowell R. Stuckman, Intervenor-Appellant (88-2194) · 314 F. Supp. 3d 135 - Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.“While we must remain sensitive to the overriding importance of First Amendment rights in the evaluation of restrictions that may be even tangentially related, the enforcement of legitimate regulations must not be diluted or rendered impractical because as an incident to their application speaking, association or writing may be affected. Under the guise of exercising the First Amendment right of free speech, a person may not reposition himself where he otherwise would have no authority to be. Nor can one in reliance upon freedom of the press, by virtue of that reliance alone, legally seize without consideration or lawful warrant the plant of a newspaper belonging to another; it would be one thing to expect to use the columns of the paper to voice views and opinions under appropriate conditions, quite another to move without authority into another’s plant for the purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Pjarolees “are neither totally free men who are being proceeded against by the government for commission of a crime, nor are they prisoners being disciplined within the walls of a federal penitentiary. They stand somewhere between these two.” This is not to say that parolees lose their constitutional rights, nor do prisoners in custody. But those rights of necessity are conditioned by the situation in which their convictions placed them.... And there is also a legitimate governmental interest in continuing means for information concerning a parolee’s deportment and any necessity for closer supervision....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.