Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 967 F.2d 1413 - Sepulveda v. Ramirez

Sepulveda v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

967 F.2d 1413 · 1992

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Sloman v. Tadlock (1994), Fortner v. Thomas (1993)

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

2201992200020102020decided

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

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Davis v. Scherer · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.

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

  1. “[t]he desire to shield one's unclothed figured from view of strangers, and particularly strangers of the opposite sex, is impelled by elementary self-respect and personal dignity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[B]oth times this circuit has addressed the question, it has permitted prison officials to view unclothed inmates of the opposite sex. We have engaged in balancing of inmates’ interest in not being viewed unclothed with the administrative needs of the prison. Thus, we have permitted female guards to view unclothed male prisoners, where “the positions to which they are assigned require infrequent and casual observation, or observation at a distance.” Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491 , 494 (9th Cir.1985). We have also held that the Constitution does not bar female guards from occasionally being present at strip searches of men or from routinely serving on shower duty in a men’s prison. Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328 , 330, 334 (9th Cir.1988). In sum, this circuit has never held that the Constitution is violated by the mere fact of a prison official viewing the unclothed body of an inmate of the opposite sex, and has not even addressed the question of bodily privacy rights parolees may have in connection with drug testing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “an assertion that a general right [Thrash] was alleged to have violated--the right to be free from warrantless searches of one's home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances--was clearly established.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.