Santiago v. Ringle’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.3d 585 · 2013
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nce the moving party has identified what it believes shows an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the nonmoving party must 'go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kryder v. Estate“Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rhinehart v. Scutt“(1) subjectively perceived facts from which to infer substantial risk to [Rhinehart], (2) did in fact draw the inference, and (3) then disregarded that risk.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rhinehart v. Scutt
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.