Case Citator › Storseth v. Spellman

Storseth v. Spellman

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
654 F.2d 1349
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
151 of 151
Citing cases (total)
719
Treatment dates
1989
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. All 151 flagged citations for Storseth v. Spellman have been read, with the one confirmed treatment listed below. Wiideman v. Angelone recognized that Thornburgh v. Abbott displaced Storseth's narrow-tailoring standard for prison correspondence restrictions.
More on how this was screened

Direct review of Thornburgh confirms that the Supreme Court rejected a least-restrictive-alternative test in favor of the deferential Turner reasonableness standard for regulations governing incoming prison materials. The other 150 flagged citations applied Storseth's rule that civil litigants have no constitutional right to appointed counsel or used nearby adverse language for Rand v. Rowland, unrelated authorities, objections, motions, and rulings.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

719 later cases cite Storseth v. Spellman; 151 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Storseth v. Spellman?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Storseth's rule requiring prison correspondence restrictions to be narrowly tailored or no greater than necessary, replacing it with the Turner reasonableness standard for incoming prison materials.

    Thornburgh v. Abbott · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Specifically, the Court declined to apply the Martinez standard in “prisoners’ rights” cases because, as was noted in Turner, Martinez could be (and had been) read to require a strict “least restrictive alternative” analysis, without sufficient sensitivity to the need for discretion in meeting legitimate prison needs. ... In light of these same concerns, we now hold that regulations affecting the sending of a “publication” ... to a prisoner must be analyzed under the Turner reasonableness standard. Such regulations are “valid if [they are] reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Storseth v. Spellman and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace