Orebaugh v. Caspari’s Empirical Analysis
910 F.2d 526 · 1990
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Woods v. Smith (1995), Del Raine v. Williford (1994)
38 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Neitzke v. Williams · Hudson v. Palmer · Turner v. Safley
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no claim can be stated when the alleged retaliation arose from discipline imparted for acts that a prisoner was not entitled to perform.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riley v. Evans · Henderson v. Baird“In its zeal to stem the tide of prisoner litigation and in a misguided attempt to discourage the open flouting of prison rules, the majority ... denies Orebaugh ... equal access to the adversarial process ... and deprives this court of the opportunity to review Orebaugh’s retaliation claim on an adequately developed record. In so doing, the majority immunizes from review any trivial disciplinary charge that prison officials can support with some evidence, allowing such officials to inhibit prisoners’ constitutional right of access to grievance procedures with impunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Watson v. Rozum“correctional officer conducting a routine search of [an inmate’s] cell confiscated and destroyed various items [the inmate] had purchased from the prison canteen because they exceeded the number of items allowed in an inmate’s cell by prison regulations.” Id. Insofar as this action was”
1 later decision 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.