Cox v. Mayer’s Empirical Analysis
332 F.3d 422 · 2003
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Thomas v. Woolum (2003), Norton v. The City of Marietta Oklahoma (2005)
14 federal appellate · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · V. C O Churner · Correction Officer Porters v. Ronald Nussle · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · McCarthy v. Madigan
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.
“A natural reading of the statute suggests that its application requires consideration of three simple questions. First, is plaintiff “a prisoner confined in [a] jail, prison, or other correctional facility?” If not, the statute is inapplicable. If so, a second question must be considered: Is the plaintiff suing under § 1983 respecting “prison conditions?” If not, the statute is inapplicable. If so, a third question must be considered: Did plaintiff exhaust “such administrative remedies as [were] available” before plaintiff “brought” his action? If question three is answered in the negative, plaintiff is in violation of the statute and the court is required to dismiss plaintiff’s suit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But, even assuming that plaintiff had made such a motion, the outcome would be no different. This is because a procedural rule “cannot overrule a substantive requirement or restriction contained in a statute (especially a subsequently enacted one).” Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (declining-under similar circumstances-to apply Rule 15(d) to excuse plaintiffs failure to comply with an analogous provision of the PLRA, § 1997e(e)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mattox v. Edelman“becomes the relevant pleading for purposes of determining diversity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.