Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 857 F.2d 1139 - Cain v. Lane

Cain v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis

857 F.2d 1139 · 1988

Citation profile

223
cited by 223 later decisions
3
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 223 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Woods v. Smith (1995), Becker v. Tenenbaum-Hill Associates, Inc. (1990)

57 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

127019881990200020102020decided

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 Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · Hewitt v. Helms · Shango v. Jurich · Benson v. Cady

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

  1. “a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “may be invalidated by evidence that they were retaliatory in nature.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The adoption of a statutory or regulatory framework for administrative segregation creates a liberty interest only where the procedural guidelines contain statutory language “of an unmistakably mandatory character, requiring that certain procedures ‘shall’, ‘will’ or ‘must’ be employed ... [t]he test for whether a statutory or regulatory procedure creates a protectable due process interest, then, hinges on the actual language used by the legislature or agency ... [ajbsent some statutory or regulatory provision that clearly limits prison officials in the exercise of their discretion, a prisoner may be transferred for any reason or no reason at all.””
    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.