Brooks v. Seiter’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 1177 · 1985
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Thornburgh v. Abbott (1989), Kent v. Johnson (1987)
46 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Haines v. Kerner · Bell v. Wolfish · Miller v. California · Procunier v. Martinez · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint is appropriate when it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Supreme Court has made it clear that prison inmates retain all first amendment rights not incompatible with their status as prisoners, or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. The Court has recognized that receiving mail from an outside source, an interest in communication shared by prisoners and their correspondents, is such a first amendment right. This right is subject to restriction in the interests of prison security, but such restrictions must further legitimate penological objectives, in a manner no more restrictive than necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Campbell“Like personal correspondence, a subscription represents the exercise of volition by both sender and recipient. The sender’s interest in communicating the ideas in the publication corresponds to the recipient’s interest in reading what the sender has to say ... We can perceive no principled basis for distinguishing publications specifically ordered by a prison inmate from letters written to that inmate for purposes of first amendment protection ...”
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.