Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 F.3d 372 - Williams v. Fountain

Williams v. Fountain’s Empirical Analysis

77 F.3d 372 · 1996

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
4
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Giakoumelos v. Coughlin (1996), Cespedes v. Coughlin (1997)

10 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

180199620002010decided

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. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Sandin v. Conner · Hewitt v. Helms · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Paulussen v. Herion

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

  1. ““[An] inmate can only claim a due process violation if he can show deprivation of a protected liberty interest, and that such interests are generally limited to (a) those actions that unexpectedly alter the inmate’s term of imprisonment; and (b) those actions that impose an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a sufficient evidentiary basis . . . then procedural due process concerns would be allayed.”
    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.