Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 351 F.3d 606 - Mojias v. Johnson

Mojias v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

351 F.3d 606 · 2003

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
November 2024
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Ortiz v. McBride (2004), Abbas v. Dixon (2007)

13 federal appellate · 2 district ·

210200320102020decided

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. § 1997E

Relies on Snider v. Melindez · Neal v. Goord · Alred Lewis v. The State of New York · Schlesinger Investment Partnership v. Fluor Corp.

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

  1. “[U]nless it is unmistakably clear that the court lacks jurisdiction, or that the complaint lacks merit or is otherwise defective, we believe it is bad practice for a district court to dismiss without affording a plaintiff the opportunity to be heard in opposition.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When determining whether an administrative remedy is available, courts ■'should be careful to look at the applicable set of grievance procedures.'’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[The PLRA] clearly does not require a prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies that do not address the subject matter of his complaint.”
    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.