Archer v. Dutcher’s Empirical Analysis
733 F.2d 14 · 1984
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Bryant v. Maffucci (1991), Weyant v. Okst (1996)
20 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Heyman v. Commerce & Industry Insurance
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t appears from the affidavits filed by appellees that [appellant’s] case may well be without merit [because] ... appellant received extensive medical attention, and the records maintained by the prison officials and hospital do substantiate the conclusion that the defendants provided [appellant] with comprehensive, if not doting, health care. Nonetheless, [appellant] does raise material factual disputes, irrespective of their likely resolution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would require us to make factual findings were we to accept them. This is not our role, nor was it appropriate for [the district court] to make such findings in granting a motion for summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hathaway v. Coughlin“where there is an underlying dispute as to whether legitimate medical claims were deliberately disregarded as punishment . . . or for other invalid reasons.”
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.