Gates v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
376 F.3d 323 · 2004
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Johnson v. Johnson (2004), Gobert v. Caldwell (2006)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Bell v. Wolfish · Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc · Wilson v. Seiter
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the inmate writes a letter to the Superintendent/Deputy Commissioner in care of the Legal Claims Adjudicator that is referred to a respondent by the Legal Claims Adjudicator; 2) if dissatisfied, the inmate may request relief from the Superintendeni/Deputy Commissioner; 3) if dissatisfied, the inmate may appeal to the Commissioner in care of the ARP Administrator. The Commissioner will notify the inmate of his final decision within forty days of receiving the appeal.The ARP also provides that “[n]o more than ninety (90) days from initiation to completion of the process shall elapse, unless an extension has been granted” and that “expiration of response time limits without receipt of a written response shall entitle the offender to move on to the next step in the process.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Epps“Id. at 581. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the prison officials. Id. It held: 41 Woods ... has failed to present medical evidence of any significance nor has he identified a basic human need that the prison has failed to meet. While the temperature in extended lockdown may be uncomfortable, that alone cannot support a finding that the plaintiff was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 42 Id. (emphasis added). In distinguishing Woods, the Gates court stated,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chandler v. Crosby“The probability of heat-related illness is extreme [on death row], and is dramatically more so for mentally ill inmates who often do not take appropriate behavioral steps to deal with the heat. Also, the medications commonly given to treat various medical problems interfere with the body’s ability to maintain a normal temperature.”
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.