Sereika v. Patel’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Estelle v. Gamble · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the charged official must act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The required state of mind, equivalent to criminal recklessness, is that the official knows of an[d] disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both 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. Thus, to satisfy the subjective prong of the deliberate indifference standard, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate that the [Defendants] knew of.and disregarded an excessive risk to [a plaintiffs] health and safety.”
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.