Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 850 F.2d 917 - Farid v. Smith

Farid v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

850 F.2d 917 · 1988

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Salahuddin v. Goord (2006), United States v. California (1993)

16 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

40019881990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Ex Parte: Edward T Young

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

  1. “(1) whether the practice asserted is religious in the person’s scheme of beliefs, and whether the belief is sincerely held, (2) whether the challenged practice of prison officials infringes upon the religious belief, and (3) whether the challenged practice of the prison officials furthers some legitimate penological interest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[A] prison regulation that impinges on inmates' constitutional rights may be valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.