Goebert v. Lee County’s Empirical Analysis
510 F.3d 1312 · 2007
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Ross v. Blake (2016), Mann v. Taser International, Inc. (2009)
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Gregg v. Georgia · Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“4. [Lelieve] had a seriously [sic] medical need which required immediate medical attention, which has been diagnosed by a physician, and/or is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for prompt medical attention. 5. Belfort was the lead arresting officer, who had actual knowledge of [Lelieve’s] injuries and impending harm because he witnessed the arrest and engaged in the use of excessive force. 6. [Lelieve’s] impending harm was easily preventable; however, Belfort was deliberately indifferent to [Lelieve’s] serious medical needs, and failed to provide necessary medical care or complete an incident report.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hoffer v. Jones · Keohane v. Jones“Whether a particular defendant has subjective knowledge of the risk of serious harm is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiff must prove three things: (i) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (ii) disregard of that risk; (iii) by conduct that is more than gross negligence.”
2 later decisions 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.