Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 F. App'x 3 - Jervis, Jack v. Mitcheff, Michael

258 F. App'x 3 - Jervis, Jack v. Mitcheff, Michael’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
November 2015
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Erickson v. Pardus · Gutierrez v. Peters

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

  1. “The district court erred in concluding that Jervis’s suit against Dr. Mitcheff is partly barred by the statute of limitations. Unlike the district court, we do not read the amended complaint to include multiple, discrete claims. Rather, Jervis alleges that ever since he first met with Mitcheff in September 2003, he has not received medical treatment for his knee and back injuries. Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need is a continuing violation that accrues when the defendant has notice of the untreated condition and ends only when treatment is provided or the inmate is released. See Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316, 318-19 (7th Cir.2001). The statute of limitations commences anew every day that treatment is withheld, see id. at 318 , so in this case it does not matter whether Jervis sued more than two years after he saw Mitcheff for the first and only time.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.