Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 F.3d 1263 - Garrett v. Hawk

Garrett v. Hawk’s Empirical Analysis

127 F.3d 1263 · 1997

Citation profile

140
cited by 140 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 17 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 140 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably V. C O Churner (2001), Douglas Nyhuis v. Janet Reno Eric Holder Kathleen Hawk Director-Bop (2000)

31 federal appellate · 17 district · 7 state decisions

690199720002010decided

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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Estelle v. Gamble · Hudson v. McMillian · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.

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

  1. “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2), in any action brought pursuant to section 1983 of this title by an adult convicted of a crime confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, the court shall, if the court believes that such a requirement would be appropriate and in the interests of justice, continue such case ... to require exhaustion of such plain, speedy, and effective remedies as are available. (2) the exhaustion of administrative remedies under paragraph (1) may not be required unless the Attorney General has certified or the court has determined that such administrative remedies are in substantial compliance with the minimum acceptable standards promulgated under subsection (b) of this section or are otherwise fair and effective.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Congress has to date failed to provide any administrative remedies that must or even could be exhausted before a Bivens suit may be brought by prisoners against prison officials. While Congress easily can amend this oversight, until an administrative remedy is provided for Bivens claims for monetary damages, we must conclude that no exhaustion of administrative remedies is required”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.