Bieregu v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “[W]e are satisfied that a pattern and practice of opening properly marked incoming court mail outside an inmate’s presence infringes communication protected by the right to free speech. Such a practice chills protected expression and may inhibit the inmate’s ability to speak, protest, and complain openly, directly, and without reservation with the court.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Brown v. PA Department of Corrections · 25 F. Supp. 2d 623 - Williams v. Price

2. ““The federal regulatory framework for handling prisoner mail is straightforward. The regulations distinguish between incoming ‘general mail,’ which the Warden must open and inspect and may read, and incoming ‘special mail,’ which the Warden may open ‘only in the presence of the inmate for inspection for physical contraband and the qualification of any enclosures as special mail.’ 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.14 (a), 540.18(a). Special mail includes incoming mail from federal and state courts. § 540.2(c). In order to receive the special handling, incoming special mail must be marked ‘Special Mail — Open only in the presence of the inmate’ and have a clearly identified sender. §§ 540.2(c), 540.18(a). According to a [Bureau of Prisons] Policy Statement, however, mail ‘from the chambers of a federal judge ... should be given special handling,’ even when it lacks the precise marking. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement No. 5265.08 (October 1,1985), § 13(a).” ■”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. PA Department of Corrections · State v. Muhammad

3. “The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to privacy survives incarceration. Turner, 482 U.S. at 95-99 , 107 S.Ct. at 2265-67 . See also Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 , 334 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006 , 108 S.Ct. 1731 , 100 L.Ed.2d 195 (1988). Although authorized by § 540.18, routine reading of purely personal letters from friends and family, those daily expressions of affection and love, may implicate an inmate’s right to privacy. Certainly personal information in the hands of prison officials may result in ridicule, harassment, and retaliation.... Similarly, opening legal mail outside the presence of an inmate, giving rise to the reasonable inference that such mail is read, may also implicate the right to privacy-”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Price · 25 F. Supp. 2d 623 - Williams v. Price