Pollock v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 656 · 1988
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Whitney v. Brown (1989), Iron Eyes v. Henry (1990)
28 federal appellate · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Turner v. Safley · Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc. · Walker v. Mintzes · Jihaad v. O'Brien
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[q]uick identification, removal of a place to hide small contraband, prevention of sanitation problems,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the prison regulation must have a valid and rational connection to the legitimate and neutral government objective put forward to justify it. Second, the court must determine whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remains [sic] open, to prison inmates. Third, the court should consider the impact that accommodating the asserted constitutional right will have on the guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources. The fourth factor is whether there are ready alternatives to the prison regulation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]fter balancing the defendant's interest in keeping prisoners' hair short against the right of the plaintiff to exercise the religion of the Lakota Indians, ... the regulation restricting hair length, as applied to the plaintiff, is not unconstitutional.”
2 later decisions 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.