King v. Greenblatt’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (§ 20409 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo · United States v. Swift & Co. · Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Delaware v. New York · Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools Independent School District No 89 Oklahoma County Oklahoma v. L Dowell
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I recognize that residents will continue to voice their complaints about the circumstances of their existence at the Treatment Center. This decision does not preclude them from challenging events on the basis of constitutional or other protected rights. In the first place, residents may bring an action to enforce the terms of the existing Plan. Moreover, as the First Circuit stated in affirming a district court’s decision to terminate another consent decree, plaintiffs remain “free to initiate a new round of proceedings designed to show that post-termination conditions actually do violate their federally protected rights.” Rouse, 129 F.3d at 662. I remind the parties again today that any new allegations of unconstitutional conditions or treatment will be addressed in separate proceedings.”
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.