Crawford-El v. Britton’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Mathews v. Eldridge · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“— Crawford-El alleges that Britton treated him worse than other prisoners because she knew that when he had been in charge of the law library at the Central Facility, he had helped other prisoners prepare their Administrative Remedy Procedure grievance forms or their appeals of disciplinary decisions. Crawford-El had “a reputation for asserting legal rights and knowing the administrative procedures for doing so,” and that made Britton hostile towards him. (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶ 6.) — On April 20, 1986, The Washington Post published a front-page article about jail overcrowding based on interviews with Crawford-El. The next day, Britton chastised Crawford-El for tricking her and for embarrassing her before her co-workers. She threatened to make life hard for him in jail any way she could. (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶ 12.) — Britton stated on another occasion that prisoners like Crawford-El “don’t have any rights.” (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶ 15.) — After the publication of a second Washington Post article, which reported inmates’ suspicions that “they were handpicked for transfer [from the District of Columbia to the State of Washington] because they were ‘jailhouse lawyers’ — trou-blemaking ‘writ-writers’ who tied up the courts with occasionally successful lawsuits against the prison system” and quoted Crawford-El to that effect, Britton told another prison official that Crawford-El was a “legal troublemaker.” (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 16-17.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[b]ecause Crawford-El has not shown that Britton committed any constitutional violations, the District cannot be held liable for her acts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.