Church v. Hegstrom’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.2d 449 · 1969
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably Sostre v. McGinnis (1971), Kauffman v. Moss (1970)
52 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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 Conley v. Gibson · Monroe v. Pape · Rochin v. People of California · Robinson v. State of California · United States v. Sealy, Inc.
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the protection provided by the United States Constitution for state prisoners’ rights to medical care does not hinge alone on the specific intent or willfulness with which a party acting under color of law may deny them, see Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1961), § 1983 likewise does not authorize federal courts to interfere in the ordinary medical practices or other matters of internal discipline of state prisons. Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519, 528 (2nd Cir. 1967); United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 323 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1963). Whether a complaint claiming failure to provide medical care is deemed to allege a denial of Fourteenth Amendment rights, McCollum v. Mayfield, 130 F.Supp. 112, 115 (N.D.Cal.1955); cf. Hirons v. Patuxent Institution, 351 F.2d 613, 614 (4th Cir. 1965), or cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment, Wright v. McMann, supra; Coppinger v. Townsend, 398 F.2d 392, 393 (10th Cir. 1968), it must suggest the possibility of some “conduct that shocks the conscience,” Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 (1952), or “barbarous act,” Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 676 , 82 S.Ct. 1417 , 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962); Beard v. Lee, 396 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1968). Mere negligence in giving or failing to supply medical treatment alone will not suffice, since all rights existing under state law are not also federal rights carrying a federal remedy. Bradford Audio”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Goode v. Hartman““Even in regard to the three defendants who might have had some direct responsibility for prisoner supervision, nothing was alleged to show specific, exceptional circumstances outside the normal processes of prison administration.” (at 451).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“that any of the defendants knew that treatment was required for the preservation of Church's life, that Church ever requested such treatment, or even that any defendant was aware of his condition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martinez v. Mancusi
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.