Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 699 P2D 1094 - Cumbey v. State

Cumbey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
6
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Tillman v. Lebanon County Correctional Facility (2000), Dean v. Lehman (2001)

6 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

16019851990200020102020decided

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 · Bounds v. Smith · Evitts v. Lucey · 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is well established that a state may legitimately restrict an inmate’s privilege to earn a wage while incarcerated. The benefits of employment during incarceration are granted by the state as a privilege and not as a right. . . . [W]hatever right Appellants have to compensation is solely by the grace of the state and governed by rules and regulations promulgated by legislative direction. The administration of our penal system involves complex problems and prison officials must be accorded latitude in the administration of prison affairs. Prisoners necessarily are subject to appropriate rules and regulations. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 , 92 S. Ct. 1079 , 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). Penal policies are evaluated in the context of the central objectives of prison administration and constitutional protections become involved only where fundamental, humane and necessary rights are breached. Here, the alleged unconstitutional manner in which inmate accounts are established and managed within Oklahoma’s penal system did not deprive Appellants of any property to which they were legally entitled. “In a realistic economic sense, we find that the monetary credits awarded to Appellants’ prison accounts are not wages’ as defined in an employer-employee relationship. Inmates employed by prison industries are not state employees. 57 O.S.Supp.1984 § 545(B). The state prison industries is not a proprietary corporation, but is rather concerned with providing for the proper government, discipli”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A trial court's record constitutes the only means for communication of its proceedings to an appellate court.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “curb the indiscriminate filing of prisoner civil rights actions; by prompting inmates to confront the initial dilemma which faces most other potential civil litigants: is the merit of the claim worth the cost of pursuing it?”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.