Smith v. Maschner’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 940 · 1990
Citation profile
122 federal appellate · 42 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 271 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Woods v. Smith (1995), Mitchell v. Maynard (1996)
122 federal appellate · 42 district · 7 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 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Haines v. Kerner · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
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 271 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not have a protected interest in providing legal representation to other inmates.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Between July 17, 1992 and July 26, 1992 Plaintiff had a pre-trial conference by telephone with the Honorable United States District Court in the office of his Case Manager, Mrs. Rennae Murphy. Between April 1992 and July 21, 1992 the defendants had kept the facility on total lock-down most of that time, declaring state of emergencies that at least twice didn’t even exist. Between July 13, 1992 and July 27, 1992 the defendants, particularly Mr. Mark McKinna, totally denied Plaintiff access to the Law Library. Be— [sic] of this Plaintiff was unprepared for the pre-trial conference. When the pre-trial conference ended, Plaintiff told Mrs. Rennae Murphy that he’d been without toothpaste since the total lockdown began July 13, 1992. plaintiff [sic] told her he had no money to purchase toothpaste and that during total facility lockdowns, inmates were suppose [sic] to receive toothpaste and razors. Additionally, Plaintiff was entitled under A.R. 850-14, as an indigent inmate, to receive toothpaste and razors. Mrs. Rennae Murphy denied Plaintiffs request stating, “You shouldn’t be suing people,” in reference to Civil Action Number 91-N-965, which involved the pre-trial conference, depriving Plaintiff of hygiene items given other similarly situated inmates by the Case Manager. Mrs. Rennae Murphy’s denial was to punish Plaintiff for having the pending lawsuit and her denial impinged and violated Plaintiffs First Amendment right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. Cons”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n isolated incident, without any evidence of improper motive or resulting interference with [Abbott's] right to counsel or to access to the courts, does not give rise to a constitutional violation.”
4 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.