Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 F.3d 710 - Graham v. Satkoski

Graham v. Satkoski’s Empirical Analysis

51 F.3d 710 · 1995

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Antonelli v. Sheahan (1996), Richardson v. Johnson (2010)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1901995200020102020decided

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. § 566 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Carey v. Piphus · Smith v. Wade · United States v. Dion · Payne v. Wood

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

  1. “The present cases involve state prisoners, not federal prisoners, but the distinction is irrelevant. Sellers is grounded in the belief that use of marshals to effect service alleviates two concerns that pervade prisoner litigation, state or federal: 1) the security risks inherent in providing the addresses of prison employees to prisoners; and 2) the reality that prisoners often get the “runaround” when they attempt to obtain information through governmental channels and needless attendant delays in litigating a case result.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Id. The Marshals Service's failure to complete service, once furnished with the necessary identifying information, is automatically”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Marshals Service is required to serve process on behalf of individuals proceeding in forma pauperis.”
    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.