McCabe v. Arave’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 634 · 1987
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Michenfelder v. Sumner (1988), Harper v. Wallingford (1989)
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Turner v. Safley · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Procunier v. Martinez · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A total ban on Aryan Nations materials is more restrictive of prisoner first amendment rights than is necessary to maintain prison security. Restriction of inmate access to Aryan Nations materials through the mail must be limited to those materials which advocate violence or are so racially inflammatory as to be reasonably likely to cause violence at the prison.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Given the strength of First Amendment protection for freedom of belief prison authorities have no legitimate penological interest in excluding religious books from the prison library merely because they contain racist views. Courts have repeatedly held that prisons may not ban all religious literature that reflects racism.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fraise v. Terhune · Nichols v. Nix“A number of factors are relevant in determining whether a challenged regulation is reasonable. These include: (1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the penological interests invoked to justify it; (2) whether the prisoners remain free to participate in other religious activities; (3) whether accommodating the prisoners asserted rights would have adverse effects on the institution; and (4) whether ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoners’ rights could be implemented at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sample v. Borg
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.