Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 300 F.3d 829 - Lewis v. Washington

Lewis v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis

300 F.3d 829 · 2002

Citation profile

112
cited by 112 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 112 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Jones v. Bock (2007), Jernigan v. Stuchell (2002)

35 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

690200220102020decided

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. § 1997E

Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · V. C O Churner · Correction Officer Porters v. Ronald Nussle · Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Gulf Power Co.

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

  1. “We join the Eighth and Fifth circuits on this issue because we refuse to interpret the PLRA `so narrowly as to ... permit [prison officials] to exploit the exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay in responding to grievances.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “administrative remedies [are] exhausted when prison officials fail to respond to inmate grievances because those remedies had become `unavailable' . . . . We join [them] on this issue because we refuse to interpret the PLRA so narrowly as to . . . permit [prison officials] to exploit the exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay in responding to grievances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “because nonjurisdictional prerequisites to suit in federal court are typically subject to equitable estoppel,”
    1 later decision 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.