Benjamin v. Fraser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he master's responsibilities typically culminate in a report. If the report includes findings of fact, they are binding in non-jury actions unless clearly erroneous.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 333 F. Supp. 2d 1234 - Laube v. Campbell · Handberry v. Thompson

2. “compliance with its remedial responsibilities has been consistently incomplete and inadequate”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Braggs v. Dunn · Morales Feliciano v. Rullán

3. “The City also contests as overly broad and burdensome the court’s requirement that all windows designed to be opened must be operational. Contending that under the PLRA the district court was obliged to consider the utility of each window individually, the City observes: The effect of a window defect depends upon the nature and degree of the defect, and the nature of the housing area, as well as the outside temperature. For example, a single window in a dayroom or modular unit that is stuck open a crack in mild weather, or one window that will not open among many windows that are operational in a particular area, will not cause unconstitutional conditions in that area. (Def. Br. at 48). But it is ironic that the City, which strenuously opposes the OCG’s continued participation, invokes the PLRA, which was intended in part to prevent judicial micro-management, in support of the proposition that the district court was required to examine every window. We agree with the district court that a comprehensive repair program would be more effective and less intrusive than an individual review of each window at the various facilities. ' Although the PLRA’s requirement that relief be “narrowly drawn” and “necessary” to correct the violation might at first glance seem to equate permissible remedies with constitutional mínimums, a remedy may require more than the bare minimum the Constitution would permit and yet still be necessary and narrowly drawn to correct the violation. Given the i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 300 F. Supp. 2d 321 - Morales Feliciano v. Calderon Serra