Layton v. Beyer’s Empirical Analysis
953 F.2d 839 · 1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017
8 federal appellate · 3 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Hewitt v. Helms · Meachum v. Fano · Arnett v. Kennedy
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“language of an unmistakably mandatory character, requiring that certain procedures 'shall,' 'will,' or 'must' be employed, ... and that administrative segregation will not occur absent specified substantive predicates.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. William Bryant v. Richard A. Lanham, Commissioner, Division of Correction William Smith, Warden, Maryland House of Correction Joseph P. Sacchet, Warden, Maryland Correctional Training Center James Murphy, Chief of Security, Maryland House of Correction, William Bryant v. William Smith, Warden James Murphy, Chief of Security · Clemmons v. Thomas“An inmate can be assigned to M.C.U. or Prehearing M.C.U. only if the substantive predicates are met. There is no provision allowing an inmate to be sent to M.C.U. or Prehearing M.C.U. unless one or more of the substantive predicates are met. The regulatory definition of M.C.U. states that it is a place where an inmate may be assigned if one or more of the substantive predicates are met. [N.J.A.C. 10A:5-1.3.] Thus the three substantive predicates are an exhaustive list which circumscribes and limits official discretion. Without one or more of the substantive predicates, an official is mandated to refrain from assigning the inmate to M.C.U. or Prehearing M.C.U.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Banks v. Fauver“The New Jersey statutes do not expressly require that an inmate be either returned to the general prison population or placed in [close-custody] unless a hearing is held within the prescribed five (presently ten) working days. However, there is no authority for an exception to the regulations which would allow continued confinement in [close-custody] beyond the five working day period. Consequently, whether or not a hearing is held an inmate must, under the regulations, either be returned to the general prison population or, if the hearing committee properly so determines, be placed in [close-custody].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sheehan v. Beyer
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.