Marcera v. Chinlund’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.2d 1231 · 1979
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), Block v. Rutherford (1984)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Gerstein v. Pugh · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Procunier v. Martinez · Abney v. United States
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“repeatedly held that due process forbids denying detainees the right 'to shake hands with a friend, to kiss a wife, or to fondle a child.' " Marcera v. Chinlund, 595 F.2d 1231 , 1234 (2d Cir.1979), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 442 U.S. 915, 99 S.Ct. 2833, 61 L.Ed.2d 281 (1979), quoting Rhem v. Malcolm, 371 F.Supp. 594, 626 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd and remanded on other grounds, 507 F.2d 333 (2d Cir.1974), aff'd after remand, 527 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir.1975) (emphasis added). It has not, however, extended this right to convicted prisoners. See Marcera, 595 F.2d at 1236 n. 7 ("Whatever constitutional right a sentenced offender may have to contact visitation--and we express no view on the issue--is primarily a matter of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holland v. Steele · Thorne v. Jones“It may be argued that we should not grant relief without first affording notice---- We conclude, however, that prior notice is required by neither Rule 23 nor the due process clause. Rule 23 does not require notice to (b)(2) plaintiff classes ... and the text of the rule does not differentiate between plaintiff and defendant classes on the issue of notice. Moreover, due process permits binding absentees to a judgment with respect to common questions of law if they have been adequately represented in the suit. In the class action context, notice is simply a means for assuring such adequacy, not an end in itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 23(a)(4) does not require a willing representative by merely an adequate one. It will often be true that, merely by protecting his own interests, a named defendant will be protecting the class. Where, as here, the legal issues as to liability are entirely common to members of the defendant class, there is little reason to fear unfairness to absentees.”
1 later decision 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.