Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 534 F.3d 1227 - Howard v. Waide

Howard v. Waide’s Empirical Analysis

534 F.3d 1227 · 2008

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
December 2024
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Gee v. Pacheco (2010), Johnson v. Killian (2012)

14 federal appellate · 4 district ·

530200820102020decided

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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.

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

  1. “[i]n other words, an official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “present an objective ‘substantial risk of serious harm'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Identifying the exact steps a prisoner must take to exhaust administrative remedies presents “a choice-of-law issue,” derived from the requirements of “the prison grievance systems themselves.” Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1282 (10th Cir.2006)(quotations omitted); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 , 127 S.Ct. 910 , 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)(“[I]t is the prison’s requirements ... that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”). PLRA exhaustion is an,affirmative defense. See Jones, [ 549 U.S. at 215 ], 127 S.Ct. at 921 . We follow our usual practice with respect to affirmative defenses, and address only those arguments related to exhaustion that have been raised by defendants. See Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (10th Cir.2007).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.