Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 828 F.2d 651 - Bailey v. Shillinger

Bailey v. Shillinger’s Empirical Analysis

828 F.2d 651 · 1987

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Perkins v. Kansas Department of Corrections (1999), Fogle v. Pierson (2006)

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

29019871990200020102020decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Hewitt v. Helms · Rhodes v. Chapman · Ruiz v. Estelle

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

  1. “Plaintiff further contends that he has been denied exercise and fresh air while in segregation. There is substantial agreement among the cases in this area that some form of regular outdoor exercise is extremely important to the psychological and physical well being of inmates, and some courts have held a denial of fresh air and exercise to be cruel and unusual punishment under certain circumstances. See, e.g. Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1152 (5th Cir.1982); Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir.1979). None, however, has ruled that such a denial is per se an Eighth Amendment violation. See Caldwell v. Miller, 790 F.2d 589, 600 (7th Cir.1986) (“The Eighth Amendment does not provide a fixed formula for determining whether the effect of particular conditions constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ”). Plaintiff admits that since he brought this suit, the prison officials have constructed an outdoor exercise facility which he is allowed to use for one hour per week. Although this amount of exposure to exercise and fresh air is still restrictive, we cannot say, without more, that it fails to satisfy the demands of the Eighth Amendment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[c]lassification of the plaintiff into administrative segregation does not involve deprivation of a liberty interest independently protected by the Due Process Clause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain”
    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.