Keller v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We cannot conclude, based on the evidence in the record, that the exception necessarily shields the government from liability.The scant record available to both the district-court and this panel makes it difficult to determine what'procedures and regulations applied to the intake psychologist and prison guards [E]xtensive redactions [of the regulations the government provided] .make it impossible for this court to ascertain exactly what regulations and procedures governed the conduct of the intake psychologist .and the prison guards. The information we do have, however, suggests that both the intake psychologist and the prison guards were subject to specific regulations and orders governing their conduct. For example, ... Program Statement 5324.07 requires psychology services to “develop local .procedures to clear inmates with a PSY ALERT assignment,” which suggests that the [prison] had mandatory local procedures that needed to be followed when clearing inmates. [The intake psychologist’s] affidavit similarly refers to procedures used to clear inmates like Keller who had,?, “PSY ALERT.” Those procedures are not in the record, and in their absence, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that they did not constrain [the psychologist’s] discretion to place Keller in the general population.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bunch v. United States

2. “considered significant a BOP Program Statement requiring staff to “develop local procedures to clear inmates with a PSY ALERT assignment” to the plaintiffs claim that BOP staff had failed to consider his entire medical profile before releasing him into the general prison population. Since “[t]ho"se procedures [were] not in the record the panel [could not] conclude as a matter of law that they did not constoain [the staffei-’s] discretion to place Keller in the general population.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warren v. United States

3. “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Lincoln v. United States