Jackson v. Nixon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f the essence of an allegation is discernible,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Noble v. Am. Nat'l Prop. · Hazley v. Roy

2. “While inmates have no constitutional right to early parole, ... Jackson does have the right to be free from unconstitutional burdens when availing himself of existing ways to access the benefit of early parole. The fact that Jackson did not have a constitutional right to, or statutory guarantee of, early parole does not preclude him from stating a claim of unconstitutional coercion. “It is a tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot require one of its citizens to forfeit his or her rights and benefits as the pnce of resisting conformance to state-sponsored religious practice.” Lee, 505 U.S. at 596 , 112 S.Ct. 2649 ; Kerr, 95 F.3d at 474-75 (state “imper-missibly coerced inmates to participate in a religious program” when the “penalty” for nonattendance at NA meetings was a potential “adverse impact on an inmate’s security risk rating” and on his parole eligibility, though no inmate had ever received the risk rating penalty); Griffin v. Coughlin, [ 88 N.Y.2d 674 ] 649 N.Y.S.2d 903 , 673 N.E.2d 98, 106 (N.Y.1996) (state’s requirement that inmates attend substance abuse treatment program’s AA meetings to be eligible for the jail’s discretionary Family Reunion Program was coercive). The Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, may have discretion in deciding whether to grant early parole ..., but that fact alone does 'not shield the defendants from potential liability for implementing a program that is alleged to violate the First Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 122 F. Supp. 3d 876 - Sundquist v. Nebraska

3. “While the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983 cases, a supervisor may still be liable under § 1983 if either his direct action or his 'failure to properly supervise and train the offending employee' caused the constitutional violation at issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wheeler v. Burgum