Steele v. Shah’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.3d 1266 · 1996
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably McElligott v. Foley (1999), Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. (2003)
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Ulmer v. Chancellor · Cottrell v. Caldwell · Greason v. Kemp
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“since a finding of deliberate indifference requires a finding of the defendant’s subjective awareness of the relevant risk, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 , 837-38, 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 1979, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), a genuine issue of material fact exists only if the record contains evidence, albeit circumstantial, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842 , 114 S.Ct. at 1981 , of such subjective awareness. See Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480 , 1491 (11th Cir.1996) (acknowledging Farmer’s requirement of subjective awareness and rejection of a solely objective test of deliberate indifference).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this circuit, it is established that psychiatric needs can constitute serious medical needs and that the quality of psychiatric care one receives can be so substantial a deviation from accepted standards as to evidence deliberate indifference to those serious psychiatric needs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the appropriate standard of psychiatric care” was at issue and that “[ejxpert opinion on that issue and its application here obviously might be important to the finder of fact.”
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.