Mitchell v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
80 F.3d 1433 · 1996
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 35 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Trujillo v. Williams (2006), Mata v. Saiz (2005)
52 federal appellate · 35 district · 7 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Oklahoma Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Estelle v. Gamble · Wolff v. McDonnell · Farmer v. Brennan · Liteky et al United States
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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”
4 later decisions 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.