Hovater v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1 F.3d 1063 · 1993
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Barney v. Pulsipher (1998), Romero v. Fay (1995)
28 federal appellate · 14 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · City of Canton v. Harris · Whitley v. Albers · Davis v. Scherer · Helling v. McKinney
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sheriff Hill had no knowledge that Mr. Robinson was a threat to the female inmates. Any known harm could stem only from the mere fact of Mr. Robinson’s gender. To find a harm present in these circumstances would, in effect, require the conclusion that every male guard is a risk to the bodily integrity of a female inmate whenever the two are left alone. There is absolutely no evidence in this record to support that conclusion. A constitutional violation may not be established by a reliance upon unsupported assumptions. Had Sheriff Hill possessed information that' Mr. Robinson as an individual posed a threat to the safety of female inmates, our decision would be different.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inmate has a constitutional right to be secure in her bodily integrity and free from attack by prison guards.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n official or municipality acts with deliberate indifference if its conduct (or adopted policy) disregards a known or obvious risk that is very likely to result in the violation of [the plaintiff's] constitutional rights.”
2 later decisions 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.