Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 547 F.2d 1206 - Williams v. Edwards

Williams v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

547 F.2d 1206 · 1977

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Rhodes v. Chapman (1981), Ramos v. Lamm (1980)

70 federal appellate · 13 district · 8 state decisions

78019771980199020002010decided

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. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Procunier v. Martinez · Robinson v. State of California · Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · Trop v. Dulles

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

  1. “The number of prison guards necessary to assure a constitutional level of inmate safety must bear some reasonable relationship to the total number of inmates. A proper ratio should be established by reference to the various kinds of facilities at the prison, taking into account the capacity and purpose of each, thereby determining the number of guards required to provide security in each; or by proof showing usual adequate ratios established at other institutions where the level of prison violence is acceptable; by proof of learned studies, or by other proof acceptable to the District Judge.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Each factor separately, i.e., overcrowding dormitory barracks, lack of classification according to severity of offense, untrained inmates with weapons, lack of supervision by civilian guards, absence of a procedure for confiscation of weapons, may not rise to constitutional dimensions; however, the effect of the totality of these circumstances is the infliction of punishment on inmates violative of the Eighth Amendment, as determined by the trial court.” 501 F.2d at 1309 . See also Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5 Cir. 1977); Johnson v. Levine, 588 F.2d 1378 (4 Cir. 1978).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(t)he Supreme Court has articulated for the federal courts a policy of minimum intrusion into the affairs of state prison administration; state prison officials enjoy wide discretion in the operation of state penal institutions.”
    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.