Whisenant v. Yuam’s Empirical Analysis
739 F.2d 160 · 1984
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa (1989), Hodge v. Police Officers (1986)
103 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Estelle v. Gamble · Bell v. Wolfish · Gordon v. Leeke
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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where the case of an indigent plaintiff presents exceptional circumstances.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“The power to appoint is a discretionary one, but it is an abuse of discretion to decline to appoint counsel where the case of an indigent plaintiff presents exceptional circumstances____ If it is apparent to the district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim but lacks capacity to present it, the district court should appoint counsel to assist him. [N]o comprehensive definition of exceptional circumstances is practical. The existence of such circumstances will turn on the quality of two basic factors — the type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of the individuals bringing it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Estelle v. Gamble prescribed the standard applicable to prisoners under sentence of confinement to whom the eighth amendment applies. Whisenant was a pretrial detainee at the time of the events about which he complains. But, Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291 (4th Cir.1978) holds that the ‘deliberate indifference’ standard is applicable to pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.