Harper v. Albert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 2 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]bsent any evidence or even an allegation which could establish a constitutionally cognizable claim for excessive force against any of the defendants (e.g., identification of the individual guard(s) who used excessive force against him ... ) Harper cannot possibly establish bystander liability as to Townley [a named defendant] or anyone else for failure to intervene, and his claim must fail.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanchez v. City of Chicago · 355 F. Supp. 3d 604 - Batson v. Hoover

2. “The problem [plaintiff] faces, and has faced throughout the factual and legal presentation of the case, is that he has failed to identify any individual guards that violated his constitutional rights with the use of excessive force at any point during the transfer. More importantly, as to this appeal he has likewise failed to identify any particular officer who harmed him as he was being transferred from the strip-search area to the segregation unit in the North Cellhouse. In order for courts to satisfy the mandate to inquire into the state of mind of prison officials who have allegedly caused a constitutional violation, ... it is most imperative that we are provided with “identified culprits”; for “[wjithout minds to examine, we cannot conduct an individualized inquiry.” It was [plaintiffs] burden to identify, ... through discovery, ... those guards that allegedly violated his constitutional rights during the time frame in question....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 754 F. Supp. 2d 962 - HUNT EX REL. CHIOVARI v. Dart

3. “In order for a pretrial order to have any value as a procedural mechanism and to protect against the possibility of either of the parties being taken by surprise at trial, the parties must be held to the issues set forth in that order. Therefore, this court has consistently enforced a strict rule of forfeiture in a situation where a party seeks to introduce a new legal theory to the litigation after the pretrial order has issued.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Family Mutual Insurance v. Miell