Smith v. Delo’s Empirical Analysis
995 F.2d 827 · 1993
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Washington v. Meachum (1996), Samford v. Dretke (2009)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Turner v. Safley · Procunier v. Martinez · Thornburgh v. Abbott · Valiant-Bey v. Morris
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Martinez is limited to outgoing correspondence when deciding the degree of security risk involved.... [I]t appears that Martinez should not be understood as establishing a special test that applies only when evaluating the constitutionality of regulations governing outgoing mail. Martinez should be understood as striking down the regulation because it was not rationally related to a legitimate and neutral penological objective and because the regulation went further than necessary to serve valid governmental interests. This is not different from the analysis mandated by Turner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sisneros v. Nix“This examination focuses upon whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral objective, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414 , 109 S.Ct. 1874, 1882 , 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989), whether alternative means for exercising the right exist, id. [490 U.S.] at 417, 109 S.Ct. at 1883 , the impact accommodation of the right will have on others in the prison, id. [490 U.S.] at 418, 109 S.Ct. at 1884 , and whether obvious, less-restrictive easy alternatives exist to the response taken by the officials. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We must first emphasize that the Supreme Court in Thornburgh made it clear that a distinction still exists between incoming prison mail and outgoing prison mail. But that distinction revolves around the differing penological concerns with respect to outgoing and incoming mail. Specifically, the Court recognized that “[t]he implications of outgoing correspondence for prison security are of categorically lesser magnitude than the implications of incoming materials.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Samford v. Dretke
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.