Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 F.3d 1082 - Moore v. Jackson

Moore v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

123 F.3d 1082 · 1997

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Jett v. Penner (2006), Olsen v. Mapes (2003)

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

2801997200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa · Walker v. Sumner

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

  1. “A medical need is serious if it is `obvious to the layperson or supported by medical evidence, like a physician's diagnosis.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Marshal needs from the prisoner information sufficient to identify the guard (“John Doe No. 23” won’t do); once that information has been provided, the Marshal should be able to obtain a current business address and complete service. If the Department of Justice declines to furnish the address to its own employee the Marshal, that hard-nosed attitude satisfactorily explains a prisoner’s inability to serve papers within 120 days. How is the prisoner to obtain information the Bureau of Prisons will not entrust to a Marshal? We join the Ninth Circuit in holding that when the district court instructs the Marshal to serve papers on behalf of a prisoner, the prisoner need furnish no more than the information necessary to identify the defendant. The Marshal’s failure to accomplish the task is automatically “good cause” within the meaning of Rule 4(j).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “shall dismiss the action without prejudice ... or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Bullock

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.