Maddox v. Love’s Empirical Analysis
655 F.3d 709 · 2011
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Erickson v. Pardus · Turner v. Safley · Cruz v. Beto
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“test is less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to infringements on constitutional rights in consideration of the need to give appropriate deference to prison officials, avoiding unnecessary judicial intrusion into security problems and other prison concerns.” Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 , 719 (7th Cir.2011); accord Spavone v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127 , 136 (2d Cir.2013) (noting that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Riker v. Lemmon“Maddox's grievance was rejected on the merits at every stage of review without any indication from prison officials that it was procedurally deficient.”
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.