Martinelli v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis
817 F.2d 1499 · 1987
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably Watts v. Florida International University (2007), Benjamin v. Coughlin (1990)
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Wisconsin v. Yoder · Pell v. Procunier · Cruz v. Beto
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The challenged prison regulation] requires that Florida correctional institutions provide religious diets that are sufficient to sustain the inmates except in “unusual cases,” such as where doing so would require excessive budgeting allowances. Our prior cases suggest that the prison administrators’ judgments as to what religious diets are too expensive are entitled to some level of deference. We need not, however, decide the continued vitality of these cases because uncontroverted testimony of [prison administrators] indicated that DCI administrators investigated the possibility of providing a full kosher diet alternative for inmates [and found that the cost would be beyond the institution’s authorized budget]. This uncontroverted testimony indicates that DCI’s refusal to provide Martinelli a full kosher diet was rationally related to its legitimate interest in avoiding cost overruns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The validity of what [the individual] believes cannot be questioned. Some theologians, and indeed some examiners, might be tempted to question the existence of the registrant’s “Supreme Being” or the truth of his concepts. But these are inquiries foreclosed to the government.... But we hasten to emphasize that while the “truth” of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question of whether it is “truly held. ” This is the threshold question of sincerity which must be resolved in every case. It is, of course, a question of fact — a prime consideration to the validity of every claim for exemption as a conscientious objector.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thacker v. Dixon“First, the prison regulation must further a substantial government interest. A regulation will be taken to further such an interest if it is rationally related to it. Second, a regulation’s restriction ... must be no greater than necessary to protect the governmental interest involved. This two-part standard should be applied with a wide-ranging deference to the expert judgment of prison administrators.”
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.