Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 433 F.3d 1001 - Johnson v. Doughty

Johnson v. Doughty’s Empirical Analysis

433 F.3d 1001 · 2006

Citation profile

162
cited by 162 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Pruitt v. Mote (2007), Grieveson v. Anderson (2008)

47 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

980200620102020decided

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. § 453 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody

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

  1. “If a prisoner is under the care of medical experts ([Dr. Molella] in this case), a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands. This follows naturally from the division of labor within a prison. Inmate health and safety is pro moted by dividing responsibility for various aspects of inmate life among guards, administrators, physicians, and so on. Holding a non-medical prison official liable in a case where a prisoner was under a physician’s care would strain this division of labor____ [A]bsent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner, a non-medical prison official like [VonWald] will not be chargeable with the Eighth Amendment scienter requirement of deliberate indifference.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he question is not whether a lawyer would present the case more effectively than the pro se plaintiff; 'if that were the test, district judges would be required to request counsel for every indigent litigant.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    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.