Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 F.3d 229 - Glover v. Johnson

Glover v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

138 F.3d 229 · 1998

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
October 2018
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Bill Martin Director Michigan Department of Correctionss v. Everett Hadix (1999), Hadix v. Johnson (1998)

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

200199820002010decided

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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E

Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey · Lindh v. Murphy · Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security

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

  1. “he violate(d) a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court's order.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “unless directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation; in any action,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “), while approximately 400 are housed in the single female camp facility, Camp Branch. 13 The district court found that the evidence demonstrated sufficient parity in the educational, vocational, apprenticeship, and work-pass opportunities afforded female and male inmates. Id. at 1017 . The court's opinion did not address the access to courts issue because the parties”
    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.