Secret v. Brierton’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 823 · 1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1995
7 federal appellate · 4 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))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Monroe v. Pape · Townsend v. Sain · Procunier v. Martinez · Cruz v. Beto
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here is no constitutional right prohibiting prison officials from confiscating most of a prisoner's personal property pending release from prison. The constitutional violation arises only if they confiscate that property without due process of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We confine the applicability of our holding to prisoner § 1983 cases which allege deprivation without due process of law of tangible items of personal property of no great monetary value. The delayed access to federal court resulting from exhaustion is less likely to impose severe burdens on the constitutional rights of prisoners than in other civil rights cases such as those raising liberty interest issues, or property deprivation claims, such as deprivation of legal materials, which might directly reflect upon liberty issues. . Although an individual does not lose [sic] all of his constitutional rights upon being imprisoned his rights are clearly circumscribed. . . . There is no constitutional right prohibiting prison officials from confiscating most of a prisoner’s personal property pending release from prison. The constitutional violation arises only if they confiscate the property without due process of law. Therefore, any delay attending the return . of property confiscated without due process is necessarily less onerous than a delay in redressing the violation of other rights because of the diminished nature of a prisoner’s property rights. A fortiori the delay is generally less onerous if the property is not of great monetary value. 584 F.2d at 829-830 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would not deprive a prisoner of an opportunity to air his complaint before a federal court if he were dissatisfied with the results of the internal prison procedures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Owen II v. Kimmel
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.