Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 678 F.2d 462 - Hudson v. Robinson

Hudson v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

678 F.2d 462 · 1982

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
2
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Ransom v. Marrazzo (1988), Sands II v. Lewis Adoc (1989)

28 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

3601982199020002010decided

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. § 1746 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Bounds v. Smith · Procunier v. Martinez · Pell v. Procunier

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

  1. “'instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he only 'injury' suffered by plaintiff was his being required on one occasion to wait ten days to have a document notarized.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While a prison must normally make notary services available to its inmates (citation omitted) it does not necessarily follow that the failure to provide such services constitutes a denial of access to the courts.”
    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.