Forbes v. Trigg’s Empirical Analysis
976 F.2d 308 · 1992
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Doherty v. City of Chicago (1996), Strasburger v. Board of Education (1998)
62 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Bell v. Wolfish · Hudson v. Palmer · Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution Walpole v. Hill · Baxter v. Palmigiano
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]rine tests are searches for Fourth Amendment purposes, and prison inmates retain protected privacy rights in their bodies, although these rights do not extend to their surroundings.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Henry v. Hulett · Nelson v. McBride“But to hold that the Due Process Clause confers a circumscribed’right on the inmate to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing, and then conclude that no explanation need ever be vouched for the denial of that right, either in the disciplinary proceeding itself or if that proceeding be later challenged in court, would change an admittedly circumscribed right into a privilege conferred in the unreviewable discretion of the disciplinary board. We think our holding in Wolff meant something more than that.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“where the underlying facts of the charged misconduct are in issue, the testimony of the charging officer would be relevant (and perhaps indispensable), and prison officials would have to offer some penological justification (such as those outlined in [Ind.Code Ann. 11-11-5-5(a)(5) ] ) for refusing to call such a witness.”
2 later decisions 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.