Glover v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 277 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Wayne v. Village of Sebring (1994), Arthur Cutshall v. Don Sundquist, Govenor of the State of Tennessee (1999)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Preiser v. Rodriguez · Hutto v. Finney · Hoptowit v. Ray · Christian Schmidt Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co. · Unsecured Creditors' Committee of DeLorean Motor Co. v. DeLorean
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall ... set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Making findings of fact “specifically detailing”: a) the history of educational offerings at all Michigan correctional institutions since the court’s 1981 “Final Order.” b) the current state of educational programs at all Michigan correctional institutions. c) the identity of the public and private colleges and universities now providing educational programs to Michigan prison inmates, and the identity of the specific Michigan correctional facilities in which such programs are being offered. d) the per capita amount now being expended for two-year and four-year degree programs for women and for men at such institutions, and the source of those funds. e) the efforts expended by the defendants to comply with the court’s 1981 order. f) the specific manner in which defendants have not complied. g) the estimated total cost and per cap-ita cost of educational programs leading to two-and four-year degrees. 2. Developing a detailed plan for remedying the equal protection violation through ordering expenditures for educational programs for women inmates on parity with those already being offered to men, if any, on a per capita, not a total expenditure basis, i.e., an educational program based on parity of expenditures rather than a plan requiring the same degrees, courses and subjects for both men and women.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Glover v. Johnson“Equal protection is not the same as identical treatment, for identical treatment may indeed result in very unequal protection. Nor is exact mathematical parity of financial per capita expenditure to be similarly equated. [T]here are many and significant differences between the sexes and there is nothing humanity can do about them ... The task of an even-handed penological system responsible for the confinement of both sexes is to adjust realistically to such differences without temptation to use them to mask latent bias or uncorroborated assumptions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.