Hayes v. Marriott’s Empirical Analysis
70 F.3d 1144 · 1995
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Norman Charles Oliver v. Wayne Scott, et al. (2002), 196 W. Va. 692 - Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Properties, Ltd. (1996)
12 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 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 · Hudson v. Palmer · Turner v. Safley · Hall v. Bellmon · Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mears v. Thomas · Mears v. Bargdill“There is no particular DOC policy relating to use of female staff during strip searches. As a matter of courtesy to the inmate population, male staff members are used whenever possible. There is no indication any female staff members conducted a strip search during the dates in question. Although every effort was made to reduce the number of female staff during the search, females are an essential part of our staffing. All posts still had to be covered and females did view parts of the search while conducting their normal duties or observation duties so male staff could conduct the searches. There was no justifiable reason to totally exclude female staff from this required function. Additionally, the total absence of female staff would have alerted inmates to an impending search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider [(1)] the scope of the particular intrusion, [(2)] the manner "in which it is conducted, [(3)] the justification for initiating it, and [(4)] the place in which it is conducted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foote v. Spiegel
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.