Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 869 F.3d 1204 - Grayson v. Warden

Grayson v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis

869 F.3d 1204 · 2017

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
November 2024
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2024

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

7020172020decided

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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Rhodes v. Chapman · Taylor v. Sturgell · Baze v. Rees

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Because of the way midazolam works in the human body, it could sedate an individual to the point where he was incapable of communicating that he was in pain while doing nothing to suppress the experience of pain. Because midazolam is a sedative and not an analgesic, there is a high likelihood that an inmate who receives a high dose of midazolam would be unable to respond to the noxious stimuli that constitute the ADOC’s consciousness check, but would still feel the excruciating effects of the second and third drugs.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Midazolam Litigation. In addition to an injunction barring their executions pursuant to the three-drug protocol, Appellants seek other injunctive relief: an order requiring the ADOC to, among other things, "disclose to Plaintiff and his counsel the lethal injection protocol,” "submit any proposed changes to the execution protocol to the Court immediately upon making them,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Midazolam Litigation. In addition to an injunction barring their executions pursuant to the three-drug protocol, Appellants seek other injunctive relief: an order requiring the ADOC to, among other things,”
    2 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.