Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 375 F.3d 521 - Riccardo v. Rausch

Riccardo v. Rausch’s Empirical Analysis

375 F.3d 521 · 2004

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Jones v. Bock (2007), Johnson v. Johnson (2004)

39 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

440200420102020decided

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 Anderson v. Creighton · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.

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

  1. “lay out the facts, articulate legal theories, or demand particular relief. All the grievance need do is object intelligibly to some asserted shortcoming.” Id. Here, Nelson's grievances explained his religious beliefs and outlined his desire to abstain from meat on Fridays and later to abstain from the meat of”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Immunity ... is a matter of law for the court, to be decided without deference to the jury’s resolution — and preferably before the case goes to the jury.”); Littrell v. Franklin, 388 F.3d 578 , 584 (8th Cir.2004) (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
    2 later decisions 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.