Harbin-Bey v. Rutter’s Empirical Analysis
420 F.3d 571 · 2005
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Eidson v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services (2007), Lambert v. Hartman (2008)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Turner v. Safley · Sandin v. Conner
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although Harbin-Bey filed a new administrative grievance against Rutter, he did so only after commencing this lawsuit. This court has held that a prisoner “may not exhaust administrative remedies during the pendency of the federal suit.” Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641 , 645 (6th Cir.1999) (dismissing an Ohio prisoner’s suit because he filed his federal complaint before completing the administrative process). We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Harbin-Bey to supplement his complaint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mattox v. Edelman“(1) the plaintiff was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity; (2) the defendant’s adverse action caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury that would likely chill a person of ordi nary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and (3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part as a response to the exercise of the plaintiffs constitutional rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not lose any privileges as a result of the [Notice of Intent to Conduct an Administrative Hearing].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maben v. Thelen
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.