Christopher John Martin and Brett C. Kimberlin v. R.D. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 76 · 1987
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Keenan v. Hall (1996), Antonelli v. Sheahan (1996)
24 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Turner v. Safley · Procunier v. Martinez · Hicks v. Oklahoma · Stephen L. Ustrak, Cross-Appellant v. James W. Fairman, Cross-Appellee
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with minute and irrelevant exceptions all correspondence from a court to a litigant is a public document, which prison personnel could if they want inspect in the court’s files. It is therefore not apparent to us why it should be regarded as privileged and how [plaintiff] could be hurt if the defendant read these documents before or after [plaintiff] does.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Special Mail--Open only in the presence of the inmate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We reject [plaintiffs’] complaint with respect to mail from attorneys. To assist prison personnel in determining whether mail should be treated as special mail, the regulations require as we noted earlier that the prisoner advise his attorney to place the special legend on the envelope. This requirement is easy to comply with and therefore presents no serious constitutional question; the cost of compliance being essentially zero, the restriction on free speech is trivial; so is the restriction on the inmate’s access to the courts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Watson v. Cain
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.