Duran v. Elrod’s Empirical Analysis
542 F.2d 998 · 1976
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. (1985)
36 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Johnson v. Glick · Rhem v. Malcolm · 371 F. Supp. 594 - Rhem v. Malcolm · Hamilton v. Love · Detainees of the Brooklyn House of Detention for Men v. Benjamin J. Malcolm, Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York, Ralph Valvano v. Benjamin J. Malcolm, Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York, Nicholas Ferraro, District Attorney, Queens County
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“they are convicted of no crime for which they may presently be punished, the state must justify any conditions of their confinement solely on the basis of ensuring their presence at trial.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““Although we emphasize that unlimited communication between detainees and their families and friends is not required, the plaintiffs in this suit must be allowed to present evidence as to whether opportunities for detainees to communicate and receive visitors can be expanded without jeopardizing the security of the institutions or requiring unreasonable expenditures.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“held that suits by pretrial detainees alleging conditions amounting to cruel and unusual punishment are better analyzed as due process attacks on conditions that exceed the sole permissible state interest of insuring presence at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hite v. Leeke
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.