Smart v. Villar’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.2d 112 · 1976
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Ramos v. Lamm (1980), Twyman v. Crisp (1978)
37 federal appellate · 18 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Estelle v. Gamble · Haines v. Kerner · Bethea v. Crouse · Ragan v. Cox
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend “evolving standards of decency” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“With this standard in mind the court is of the view that the acts complained of do not show deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs as alleged. Even assuming a boil is sufficiently serious, it is clear from the record that medical care was provided. Where there is such evidence of a “series of sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and medication ... it cannot be said there was a ‘deliberate indifference’ to the prisoner’s complaints.” To the extent plaintiff is complaining about Dr. Rei-held’s decision to lance the boil without a local anesthetic, the court finds plaintiff is merely asserting a difference of opinion as to the kind and quality of medical treatment necessary under the circumstances. It is well settled that this type of disagreement fails to give rise to a cause of action under § 1983.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hammer v. Saffle
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.