538 F. Supp. 2d 511 - Harnett v. Barr’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1997E · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Foman v. Davis · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Turner v. Safley · Pell v. Procunier
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t has been ■ held that an appropriate guiding principle for determining personal responsibility is where a grievance alleges an ongoing constitutional violation, the supervisory official who reviews the grievance is personally involved if he is confronted with a situation that he can remedy directly. If the official is confronted with a violation that has already occurred and is not ongoing, then the official will not be found personally responsible for failing to remedy a violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t is now well-settled that the failure of a supervisory official to investigate a letter of protest written by an inmate is not sufficient to show personal involvement. Smart v. Goord, 441 F.Supp.2d 631, 642-643 (S.D.N.Y.2006). The same is true if the only involvement of the supervisory official is to refer the inmate’s complaint to the appropriate staff for investigation. Ortiz-Rodriguez v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 491 F.Supp.2d 342, 347 (W.D.N.Y.2007).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. Artus
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.