Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 F.2d 333 - Rhem v. Malcolm

Rhem v. Malcolm’s Empirical Analysis

507 F.2d 333 · 1974

Citation profile

201
cited by 201 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

80 federal appellate · 15 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 201 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), Block v. Rutherford (1984)

80 federal appellate · 15 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states

122019741980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Procunier v. Martinez · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Johnson v. Glick · Lee v. Texas

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

  1. “[T]he demands of equal protection of the laws and of due process ... prevent unjustifiable confinement of detainees under worse conditions than convicted prisoners.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Upon the whole, if the offense be not bailable, or the party cannot find bail, he is to be committed to the county gaol . . . there to abide till delivered by due course of law . . . But this imprisonment, as had been said, is only for safe custody, not for punishment. Therefore, in this dubious interval between the commitment and the trial, a prisoner ought to be used with the utmost humanity, and neither be loaded with needless fetters or subjected to other hardships than such as are absolutely requisite for the purpose of confinement only.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for the state's depriving any person of his constitutional rights.”
    2 later decisions 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.