Miller v. Henman’s Empirical Analysis
804 F.2d 421 · 1986
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. (1987), Triad Associates, Inc. v. Chicago Housing Authority (1990)
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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 · 18 U.S.C. § 4083 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge · Wolff v. McDonnell · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Daniels v. Williams
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“difference between criteria and binding rules of decision,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Hewitt , which was decided after Bono , holds that there is no substantive entitlement to be placed in a prison’s general population rather than in segregated confinement. We need not deal here with a claim that certain reasons for placing a prisoner in segregation are substantively forbidden; Miller does not contend that the reasons for placing him in segregation are off limits to prison officials. Hewitt shows that, in a case of this character, there is no broader substantive entitlement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The difference between the pre- and postlockdown conditions at Marion is one of degree and not of kind. Even assuming that the lockdown restrictions are permanent, it cannot be said that they brought about conditions of confinement that are qualitatively different from the punishment characteristically suffered by a convict.”
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.