Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.2d 362 - Adams v. Gunnell

Adams v. Gunnell’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.2d 362 · 1984

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill (1985), Freeman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (2004)

19 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

18019841990200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 4082

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[B]ecause we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[0]ne cannot automatically apply procedural rules designed for free citizens in an open society, ... to the very different situation presented” by a prison disciplinary proceeding_' Because “legalistic wrangling” over the meaning of prison rules “may visibly undermine the [prison] administration’s position of total authority,” federal courts have deferred to the interpretation of those rules by prison authorities “unless fair notice was clearly lacking.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “statute for signing and circulating a petition complaining of discrimination against black inmates by prison officials. Id. at 364-65, 368. However, some of these same plaintiffs had previously signed similar petitions without sanctions or other adverse consequences. Id. at 369. The Fifth Circuit held that the regulation was impermissibly vague as applied to the plaintiff inmates. The court reasoned that”
    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.