287 F. Supp. 2d 477 - Scott v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 5 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If nonexhaustion is not clear from the face of the complaint, a defendant's motion should be converted, pursuant to Rule 12(b), to one for summary judgment limited to the narrow issue of exhaustion . . . .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pierce v. HC DOC, et al. · Lang v. Gordon, et al.

2. “To establish a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that the speech or conduct at issue was protected, (2) that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected speech and the adverse action.” ... Conclusory allegations or denials are ordiparily not sufficient to defeat a motion for. summary judgment when the moving party has set out a documentary case.... Regardless of the presence of retaliatory motive, however, a defendant may be entitled to summary judgment if he can show dual motivation, i.e., that even without the improper motivation the alleged retaliatory action would have occurred.... Plaintiff has the initial burden of showing that an improper motive played a substantial part in defendant’s action. The burden then shifts to defendant to show it would have taken exactly the same action absent the improper motive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 315 F. Supp. 2d 434 - Lipton v. County of Orange, NY

3. “The [habeas] exhaustion doctrine is principally designed to protect the state courts’ role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings. Under our federal system, the federal and state courts are equally bound to guard and protect rights secured by the Constitution. Because it would be unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation, federal courts apply the doctrine of comity, which teaches that one court should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the matter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jose Ortiz v. D. McBride Sgt. & R.O. Mara, Counselor of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility