Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 F.3d 1212 - Fennell v. Gilstrap

Fennell v. Gilstrap’s Empirical Analysis

559 F.3d 1212 · 2009

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
April 2021
most recently cited

6 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably T.W. v. School Board (2010), Walden v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (2012)

6 federal appellate ·

610200920102020decided

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 Pearson v. Callahan · Whitley v. Albers · Hudson v. McMillian · Skrtich v. Thornton · Hadley v. Gutierrez

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

  1. “(1) the extent of injury; (2) the need for application of force; (3) the relationship between that need and the amount of force used; (4) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response; and (5) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of facts known to them.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “However, if the force is applied 'maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,' then it does 'shock the conscience,’ and is excessive under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments.” Id.; see also Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.2007) (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “use of force was both excessive and unnecessary, even if correct, does not answer the question of whether” deputy violated plaintiff's constitutional rights). 7 . In this memorandum, Deloach enacted a policy requiring that”
    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.