Rogers v. Scurr’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.2d 1211 · 1982
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Martin v. Sargent (1985), Lawrence D. Caldwell v. Harold G. Miller, Warden (1986)
38 federal appellate · 11 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Procunier v. Martinez · Pell v. Procunier · State of Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Davis v. Romney
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he court must determine that a cognizable danger of future violation exists and that danger must be more than a mere possibility.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The courts should not get involved unless either a constitutional violation has already occurred or the threat of such a violation is both real and immediate.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While in general we agree with the district court that limitations on [first amendment] rights should be no greater than necessary to protect the governmental interest involved, Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 , 413 [ 94 S.Ct. 1800 , 1811, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), we believe that, especially when the maintenance of institutional security is at issue, prison officials ordinarily must have wide latitude within which to make appropriate limitations. In this instance, the prison officials have explained the purpose of their policy of prohibiting the wearing of caps and robes outside prayer meetings; they urge that such attire makes it too easy to conceal contraband. We find this explanation eminently reasonable, particularly in view of the fact that operating personnel is limited.”
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.