Redding v. Fairman’s Empirical Analysis
717 F.2d 1105 · 1983
Citation profile
89 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Cleavinger v. Saxner (1985), Daly v. Hill (1986)
89 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Wolff v. McDonnell · Carey v. Piphus · Illinois v. Allen · United States v. Security Industrial Bank
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nominal damages are not compensation for loss or injury, but rather recognition of a violation of rights. Nominal damages do not measure anything. The plaintiffs argument must be rejected; we will not disturb the district court’s decision to award only $1 nominal damages.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Without written records, the inmate will be at a severe disadvantage in propounding his own cause to or defending himself from others. It may be that there will be occasions when personal or institutional safety is so implicated that the statement may properly exclude certain items of evidence, but in that event the statement should indicate the fact of the omission. Otherwise, we perceive no conceivable rehabilitative objective or prospect of prison disruption that can flow from the requirement of these statements.” {Wolff, 418 U.S. at 565 , 41 L. Ed. 2d at 956 , 94 S. Ct. at 2979 .)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[N]one of [the Adjustment Committee Summaries], standing alone, fulfills the essential functions stated in [Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1979) ]. Moreover, the summaries violate A.R. 804 which states that '[i]t will not be sufficient for the Committee's decision to simply adopt and copy the exact wording of the Resident Disciplinary Report,' and violate the Due Process Clause, which requires the Committee to state not merely how it acts, but also why it acts in a particular manner.... The phrases 'based on all available evidence,' or 'all evidence presented' are conclusory; they do not disclose what evidence forms the bases of the Committee rulings. The Committee apparently gives credence to the resident disciplinary report in almost every case, but does not admit to doing so in its summaries. Also, no reasons are given for discounting the inmates' contradictory evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.