Giano v. Senkowski’s Empirical Analysis
54 F.3d 1050 · 1995
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Thomas v. Roach (1999), Kerzer v. Kingly Manufacturing (1998)
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Wolff v. McDonnell · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Turner v. Safley · Connally v. General Construction Co.
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1) A “valid and rational connection” between the regulation and the legitimate governmental interest that justifies it. 2) Whether there are alternative means of exercising the burdened practice available to the inmates. 3) The effect an accommodation would have on prison resources. 4) Whether there exist any affordable alternative regulations or practices that would accommodate the inmates’ religious practices “without compromising valid penological interests.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duamutef v. Hollins · Shakur v. Selsky
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.