Wolfel’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Williams v. Kentucky (1994), Davis v. Mutual Life Insurance (1993)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Hensley v. Eckerhart
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“officer in the defendant's position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that he was under an affirmative duty to have refrained from such conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Due process undoubtedly requires certain minimal standards of specificity in prison regulations, but we reject the view that the degree of specificity required of such regulations is as strict in «very instance as that required of ordinary criminal sanctions. This results from the fundamental difference between normal society and prison society. The maintenance of strict security and discipline, with its unfortunate but unavoidable circumscription of an inmate’s freedom to act, is essential to safe and efficient prison administration. As such, it is nearly impossible for prison authorities to anticipate, through narrowly drawn regulations, every conceivable form of misconduct which threatens prison security.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the court ruled that punishment of the plaintiffs for circulating contraband [petitions] violated their due process rights. The petitions were deemed contraband because circulating petitions is a group-organizing activity and plaintiffs failed to get the advance approval required by prison regulations. However, the prison had a history of allowing inmates to circulate petitions. Furthermore, the district court found that circulation of petitions was not an inherently illegal or wrongful activity and the inmates, therefore, had no reason to believe their action was prohibited.”
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.