Murphy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.2d 637 · 1981
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Carter v. Duncan-Huggins, Ltd. (1984), Martin v. White (1984)
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 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 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Ingraham v. Wright · Angrist v. United States · California v. Arizona · Jones v. Diamond
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A pervasive risk of harm may not ordinarily be shown by pointing to a single incident or isolated incidents, but it may be established by much less than proof of a reign of violence and terror in the particular institution. * * * It is enough that violence and sexual assaults occur * * * with sufficient frequency that * * * prisoners * * * are put in reasonable fear for their safety and to reasonably apprise prison officials of the existence of the problem and the need for protective measures. * * * It is not necessary to show that all prisoners suffer a pervasive risk of harm. It is enough that an identifiable group of prisoners do, if the complainant is a member of that group.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. White“[W]e do not know whether the verdict rests on a permissible or impermissible theory of liability. Where there are several theories of liability, one of which is impermissible, and the court “cannot determine on which theory of liability the jury relied when finding in favor of the appellant, leaving open the possibility that it may have relied on the impermissible one, the case must be remanded for retrial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““there can be but one reasonable conclusion” drawn from the evidence viewed “in the light most favorable to the [plaintiffs] ..., giving them the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference that the evidence may justify”.”
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.