Horton v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Instead, [a court must] ... examine this component ... “contextually,” making sure to be responsive to “contemporary standards of decency.” [It, specifically,] ... must consider “whether society considers the risk to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” [It] ... also must consider that the Eighth Amendment is intended to protect against both present and future dangers to inmates. Prison authorities must protect not only against current threats, but also against “sufficiently imminent dangers” that are likely to cause harm in the “next week or month or year.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 986 F. Supp. 1036 - Payne v. Collins · 258 F. Supp. 2d 508 - Thompson v. Eason

2. “Inmates are protected from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. With regard to the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his safety, you are instructed that prison officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other prisoners; however, not every injury suffered by a prisoner at the hands of another rises to the level of a constitutional violation. In order to prevail, the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his physical health or safety. To make such a showing, the Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his physical health or safety, and that he suffered harm or injury as a result. In order to show this, the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and also that the Defendant did in fact draw this inference. However, you are further instructed that a failure by the Defendant to alleviate a significant risk which he should have perceived, but did not, does not constitute the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and therefore is not deliberate indifference to safety. Mere negligence or a lack of reasonable care which falls short of being deliberately indifferent does not constitute the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and therefore”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 381 F. App'x 445 - Marquis Hatton v. Tommy Pharis

3. “[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate ... safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 258 F. Supp. 2d 508 - Thompson v. Eason