Peterkin H v. Jeffes H’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 1021 · 1988
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 15 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Michael Malik Allah v. Thomas Seiverling (2000), Sands II v. Lewis Adoc (1989)
43 federal appellate · 15 district · 9 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 18 U.S.C. § 3005 · 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Criminal Justice Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 4245 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anders v. California · Estelle v. Gamble · Faretta v. California · Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ordinarily, a prisoner should have direct access to a law library if the state chooses to provide a prison law library as its way of satisfying the mandate of Bounds . Simply providing a prisoner with books in his cell, if he requests them, gives a prisoner no meaningful chance to explore the legal remedies that he might have. Legal research often requires browsing through various materials in search of inspiration; tentative theories may have to be abandoned in the course of research in the face of unfamiliar adverse precedent. New theories may occur as a result of a chance discovery of an obscure or forgotten case. Certainly a prisoner, unversed in the law and the methods of legal research, will need more time or more assistance than the trained lawyer exploring his case. It is unrealistic to expect a prisoner to know in advance exactly what materials he needs to consult.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n cases where a prisoner's claim relates to access to resources other than legal assistance itself, an actual injury [requirement] can be helpful in determining whether an unconstitutional abridgement of access to the courts has occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts.'”
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.