Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 F.3d 1234 - Dulany v. Carnahan

Dulany v. Carnahan’s Empirical Analysis

132 F.3d 1234 · 1997

Citation profile

207
cited by 207 later decisions
April 2025
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 20 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 207 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Gerald Tlamka As Special Administrator for the Estate of Frank Tlamka Deceased v. Otha Lee Serrell (2001), Phillips v. Jasper County Jail (2006)

69 federal appellate · 20 district ·

13301997200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan

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

  1. “(1) that [James] suffered objectively serious medical needs and (2) that the prison officials knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n the face of medical records indicating that treatment was provided and physician affidavits indicating that the care provided was adequate, an inmate cannot create a question of fact by merely stating that [he] did not feel [he] received adequate treatment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    3 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.