Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 910 F.2d 75 - Russell v. Coughlin

Russell v. Coughlin’s Empirical Analysis

910 F.2d 75 · 1990

Citation profile

107
cited by 107 later decisions
1
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Wright v. Smith (1994), Rodriguez v. Phillips (1995)

31 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

7601990200020102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Hewitt v. Helms

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

  1. “An alleged violation of a prison policy, directive, or regulation, in and of itself, does not give rise to a federal claim, because '[f]ederal constitutional standards rather than state law define the requirements of procedural due process.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “defined the contours of the right with reasonable specificity”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Despite the inexactness of the “reasonable time” standard, defendants must be held to have recognized that this standard placed some obligation on them to act in a timely fashion. Absent some administrative consideration that might have justified a delay in providing Russell with notice and an opportunity to be heard, defendants could not have reasonably believed that their release of Russell on his tenth day of confinement complied with the “reasonable time” standard.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.