Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 579 F.2d 1365 - Durso v. Rowe

Durso v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis

579 F.2d 1365 · 1978

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
7
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Shango v. Jurich (1982), Chavis v. Rowe (1981)

41 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions

81019781980199020002010decided

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))

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Perry v. Sindermann · Meachum v. Fano

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

  1. “Like a parolee, a convict on work-release can pursue employment or education. He is eligible for leaves to renew contact with his family. He may also be released to participate in unsupervised activities in the community”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A state prisoner need not allege the presence of a suspect classification or the ■infringement of a fundamental right in order to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. The lack of a fundamental constitutional right or the absence of a suspect class merely affects the court’s standard of review; it does not destroy the cause of action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “prison authorities customarily do not interfere with one's work-release status unless the participant violates some rule of the program or of his work-release contract.”
    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.