Kerr v. Puckett’s Empirical Analysis
138 F.3d 321 · 1998
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Harris v. Garner (2000), Dawes v. Walker (2001)
34 federal appellate · 10 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 994 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Siegert v. Gilley · Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. · Weems v. United States
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress deemed prisoners to be pestiferous litigants because they have so much free time on their hands and there are few costs to filing suit.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Common sense” is a treacherous guide to statutory interpretation. One person’s “common sense” is another’s bte [sic] noire. Statutes are compromises among legislators who may hold incompatible conceptions of the public weal. Some legislators opposed the [PLRA] outright; others wanted more sweeping restrictions on prisoners’ litigation; the actual statute satisfied few completely. Instead of relying on “common sense”, which is an invitation to treat the law as if one side or the other had its way, a court should implement the language actually enacted — provided the statute is not internally inconsistent or otherwise absurd.”
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.