Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 675 F.2d 116 - Weaver v. Jago

Weaver v. Jago’s Empirical Analysis

675 F.2d 116 · 1982

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
3
states following
April 2007
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2007 · most notably Walker v. Mintzes (1985), Lawrence D. Caldwell v. Harold G. Miller, Warden (1986)

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

340198219902000decided

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

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Wisconsin v. Yoder · Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division · Kennedy v. Meacham

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

  1. “... the state must do more than simply offer conclusory statements that a limitation on religious freedom is required for security, health or safety in order to establish that its interests are of the “highest order”. 22”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... [0]nly those [state] interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance [inmates’] legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. Id. (emphasis added)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"[I]f the belief asserted is `philosophical and personal rather than religious,' or is `merely a matter of personal preference,' and not `one of deep religious conviction shared by an organized group,' it will not be entitled to First Amendment protection." Fiedler v. Marumsco Christian Sch., 631 F.2d 1144 (4th Cir.1980), citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , 92 S.Ct. 1526 , 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). (emphasis added).”
    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.