Wall v. Wade’s Empirical Analysis
741 F.3d 492 · 2014
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C
Relies on Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Turner v. Safley · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz · City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. The heavy burden of persuading the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again lies with the party asserting mootness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Turner] directs courts to assess the overall reasonableness of such regulations by weighing four factors. “First, there must be a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it,” and this connection must not be “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Second, a court must consider whether inmates retain alternative means of exercising the circumscribed right. Third, a court must take into account the costs that accommodating the right would impose on other inmates, guards, and prison resources generally. And fourth, a court must consider whether there are alternatives to the regulation that “fully accommodate[ ] the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Potts v. Holt
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.