Johnson v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “Personal involvement will be found, however, where a supervisory official receives and acts on a prisoner’s grievance or otherwise reviews and responds to a prisoner’s complaint. See, e.g., Ramos v. Artuz, [ 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10327 ], 2001 WL 840131 , at - (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2001) (personal liability where prison official “sent plaintiff numerous letters containing some explanation or justification concerning the issues raised by plaintiff’); cf. Johnson v. Bendheim, [ 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679 ], 2001 WL 799569 , at (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2001) (motion to dismiss denied as to prison official who received prisoners’ grievances and denied them); James v. Artuz, [ 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5708 ], 1994 WL 174005 , at (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1994) (denying summary judgment where a prison official conducted a de novo review of a prison disciplinary hearing); Van Pelt v. Finn, [ 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15951 ], 1993 WL 465297 , at (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 1993) (prison official demonstrated personal involvement when he reviewed plaintiffs grievances).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 732 F. Supp. 2d 162 - Ward v. Rabideau

2. “(1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of inmates by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 270 F. Supp. 2d 302 - Brooks v. Berg

3. “Generally, a court may not look outside the pleadings when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, the mandate to read the papers of pro se litigants generously makes it appropriate to consider plaintiff's additional materials, such as his opposition memorandum.” Gadson v. Goord, 96-CV-7544, 1997 WL 714878 , at , n. 2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1997) (citing, inter alia, Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192, 195 [2d Cir.1987] [considering plaintiff's response affidavit on motion to dismiss]). Stated another way,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 678 F. Supp. 2d 35 - Dallio v. Hebert