Keith v. Koerner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate ·

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

1. “As an initial matter, it is clearly established that a prison official’s deliberate indifference to sexual abuse by prison employees violates the Eighth Amendment. See Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912, 916 (10th Cir.2008); see also Ortiz v. Jordan, [ 562 U.S. 180 ] 131 S.Ct. 884, 892-93 , 178 L.Ed.2d 703 (2011). Such a violation occurs where “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety,” and there is an affirmative link between the constitutional deprivation and the supervisor’s actions. Tafoya, 516 F.3d at 916 (quotation omitted); see also Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1198, n. 6, 1204 (10th Cir.2010). This “affirmative link” has had three related, indistinct prongs in our case law: “(1) personal involvement, (2) sufficient causal connection, and (3) culpable state of mind.” Dodds, 614 F.3d at 1195, 1199 . We have held that a plaintiff may establish the first prong with evidence that “the defendant promulgated, created, implemented or possessed responsibility for the continued operation of a policy” that caused the constitutional harm. Id. at 1199 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 46 F. Supp. 3d 1191 - Poore v. Glanz

2. “[The warden] characterizes Ms. Keith's argument as: because [the warden] had the responsibility for managing the facility and imposing discipline, and did in fact discipline employees for undue familiarity and sexual misconduct,” the warden “must have been aware” of an employee’s intent to engage in illegal sexual acts with the plaintiff, an inmate of the prison.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 572 F. App'x 611 - Vega v. Davis

3. “In resolving a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the court considers (1) whether the facts that [Plaintiff] has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [Defendants'] alleged misconduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Colbruno v. Kessler