Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 387 F.3d 1344 - Brown v. Johnson

Brown v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

387 F.3d 1344 · 2004

Citation profile

153
cited by 153 later decisions
2
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Mann v. Taser International, Inc. (2009), Boxer X v. Harris (2006)

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

750200420102020decided

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. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Max Lopez Jr v. Ga Smith Larry Loo a Acevedo Patterson 4a-2r · Jaffke v. Dunham · Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital · McGore v. Wrigglesworth

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

  1. “In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`must satisfy both an objective and a subjective inquiry. First, [he] must prove an objectively serious medical need. Second, [he] must prove that the [government] official acted with deliberate indifference to that need.'”
    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.