Campbell v. Cauthron’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.2d 503 · 1980
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Ruiz v. Estelle (1982), Harris v. Fleming (1988)
75 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 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. § 1988
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Bell v. Wolfish · Hutto v. Finney · Pell v. Procunier · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(T)he length of confinement cannot be ignored in deciding whether the confinement meets constitutional standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o prevent enforced idleness resulting in the type of physical denigration described in the record, each inmate that is confined in his cell for more than sixteen hours shall ordinarily be given the opportunity to exercise for at least one hour per day outside the cell. The determination of the type of exercise equipment and facilities available for this purpose shall be within the discretion of jail officials, subject to the approval of the district court. They must, however, provide a meaningful opportunity for exercise. Merely allowing the inmate to walk around in the narrow corridor between the cells does not provide adequate exercise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal if it is arbitrary or purposeless a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Villanueva v. George
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.