Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 F.2d 1246 - Chapman v. Kleindienst

Chapman v. Kleindienst’s Empirical Analysis

507 F.2d 1246 · 1974

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably McI Communications Corporation McI v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (1983), Maclin v. Freake (1981)

61 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

400197419801990200020102020decided

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. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Barr v. Matteo · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood

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

  1. “Edward Joseph X. Chapman was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, when, on October 4, 1972, he was transferred to the Marion, Illinois, penitentiary. On October 9 Chapman was assigned to the kitchen detail, which assignment included transporting food carts and clearing food off of them. When Chapman discovered that the food trays in the carts contained pork, he went to his supervisor, defendant J. E. Brown, and informed him that because of the beliefs of his Black Muslim faith, he could not handle the pork on the trays. According to his testimony at trial, Brown then offered Chapman the use of either gloves or various kitchen utensils to enable him to complete the task. While Chapman at trial denied that he was offered these, he did acknowledge that, regardless of such an offer, he would still have refused to do the work, since even indirect touching was forbidden. Brown then advised Chapman that he would be forced to write a disciplinary report on Chapman if the task were not performed. Chapman responded by saying that the last man who had written a report on him concerning an incident of this nature had been “blown out of an oven” at Leavenworth just two months previously. After the incident Brown filed a report charging Chapman with violating Prison Code § 303, “Failing to perform work as instructed by a supervisor.” His report also mentioned the Leavenworth remark. An investigative report, completed the day of the incident by another official and”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It thus appears that the prisoner is confronted with the accusation against him and afforded a reasonable opportunity to deny the accusation or explain his actions. In the context of the nature of the administrative action here involved, this would appear to fairly and rationally satisfy the concept of procedural due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “while ... burying the jury demand in the complaint is not the best practice, the court and its staff have a special responsibility to scrutinize carefully pro se complaints for just such infirmities.”
    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.