Ruiz v. Estelle’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 1115 · 1982
Citation profile
217 federal appellate · 25 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 456 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989), Howard v. King (1983)
217 federal appellate · 25 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Estelle v. Gamble · Morrissey v. Brewer
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 456 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]ule 53 does not terminate or modify the district court’s inherent equitable power to appoint a person, whatever be his title, to assist it in administering a remedy. The power of a federal court to appoint an agent to supervise the implementation of its decrees has long been established.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'the remedy should begin with what is absolutely necessary. If those measures later prove ineffective, more stringent ones should be considered.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]cts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs " of inmates constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Neither inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care, nor carelessness, nor even deliberate failure to conform to the standards suggested by experts is cruel and unusual punishment. The Constitution does not command that inmates be given the kind of medical attention that judges would wish to have for themselves, nor therapy that Medicare and Medicaid provide for the aged or the needy. It prohibits only "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”
4 later decisions 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.