Taylor v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.3d 483 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie · Newlin v. Helman · Ciarpaglini v. Saini · Gibbs v. Roman
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a defendant contests a plaintiff's claims of imminent danger, a court must act to resolve the conflict. A contrary conclusion would mean that a three-strikes plaintiff could proceed IFP whenever his allegations of imminent danger were facially plausible, even if the defendant had incontrovertible proof that rebutted those allegations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t has never been the rule that courts must blindly accept a prisoner's allegations of imminent danger.”); Fuller v. Myers, 123 Fed.Appx. at 367 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 40 at 6. Shepherd asserted below that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury because (1) he”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shepherd v. Annucci
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.