Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 F.3d 650 - Newman v. Holmes

Newman v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

122 F.3d 650 · 1997

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
August 2021
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Ware v. Jackson County (1998), Jackson v. Everett (1998)

22 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2701997200020102020decided

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 Farmer v. Brennan · Chapman v. Burton Berger & Associates · Kalan Inc. v. United States · McGill v. Duckworth · Spawn v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “deliberately indifferent to the need to protect an inmate from a substantial risk of serious harm from other inmates”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the duty to act reasonably is a negligence standard, and Farmer stands for the broad proposition that deliberate indifference includes something more than negligence but less than actual intent to harm”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “intentionally opened [Fender's] cell door for the purpose of assisting [the attacker] in assaulting [Fender], that intent to cause harm would clearly constitute deliberate indifference for Eighth Amendment purposes.”
    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.