Kahane v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
527 F.2d 492 · 1975
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro (1987), Billiteri v. United States Board of Parole (1976)
51 federal appellate · 17 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. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Preiser v. Rodriguez · Procunier v. Martinez · Pell v. Procunier · Cruz v. Beto · Price v. Johnston
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“properly recognized that prison authorities must accommodate the right of prisoners to receive diets consistent with their religious scruples,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where [institutional prison restrictions] operate on fundamental rights such as the freedom of worship, the degree of restriction must be only that which can be justified by an ‘important or substantial government interest’ in the restriction by the penal institution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Preiser ... in no way decided that habe-as corpus would not lie to challenge conditions of confinement; it decided only that a state prisoner who was seeking to challenge the length of confinement could not utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3), to avoid the exhaustion requirements of § 2254(b) and (c). Although Mr. Justice Stewart said only that the availability of habeas to challenge prison conditions was “arguable,” 411 U.S. at 499 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , the earlier cases cited by him, Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 , 89 S.Ct. 747 , 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969), and Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 , 92 S.Ct. 407 , 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971), betrayed no uncertainty on the point.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. ILINA v. Zickefoose
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.