Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 533 F.3d 1325 - Burnette v. Taylor

Burnette v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

533 F.3d 1325 · 2008

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
February 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Mann v. Taser International, Inc. (2009), Harper v. Lawrence County (2010)

10 federal appellate ·

480200820102020decided

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))

Relies on Farmer v. Brennan · Cottrell v. Caldwell · Farrow v. West · Lancaster v. Monroe County · Goebert v. Lee County

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

  1. “make no credibility determinations or choose between conflicting testimony, but instead accept[s] Plaintiff's version of the facts drawing all justifiable inferences in Plaintiff's favor.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention. In the alternative, a serious medical need is determined by whether a delay in treating the need worsens the condition. In either case, the medical need must be one that, if left unattended, poses a substantial risk of serious harm.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To establish 'deliberate indifference,’ Plaintiff must show that a Defendant had ‘(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than [gross] negligence.’”
    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.