Kahey v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
836 F.2d 948 · 1988
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Baranowski v. Hart (2007), Shakur v. Schriro (2008)
22 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Turner v. Safley · Cruz v. Beto · O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“special food and individualized processing and containers in order to completely avoid pork-contamination.” Id. at 949-50 . The court affirmed summary judgment for the prison, holding that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ruled that prisons need not respond to particularized religious dietary requests. The principal basis for decision in v. Kastner, 805 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir.1986) ] was the court’s recognition that if one such dietary request is granted, similar demands will proliferate, with two possible results: either accommodation of such demands will place an undue burden on the prison system, or the prisons would become entangled with religion while drawing fine and searching distinctions among various free-exercise claimants. Udey controls our decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the legitimate government interest invoked to justify it, (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the rights that remain open to the inmates, (3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional rights will have on other inmates, guards and prison resources, and (4) the presence or absence of ready alternatives that fully accommodate the prisoners’ rights at de minimis costs to valid penological interests.””
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.