Thompson v. Virginia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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. “fair notice to prison officials that they cannot, no matter their creativity, maliciously harm a prisoner on a whim or for reasons unrelated to the government's interest in maintaining order.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brooks v. Johnson · 384 F. Supp. 3d 1321 - Ali v. Lambert

2. “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brooks v. Johnson · Segrain v. Duffy

3. “(1) 'the need for the application of force'; (2) 'the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used'; (3) the extent of any reasonably perceived threat that the application of force was intended to quell; and (4) 'any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.' " Iko , 535 F.3d at 239 (quoting Whitley , 475 U.S. at 321 , 106 S.Ct. 1078 ). The point of this analysis is to determine whether "[p]unitive intent behind a defendant's use of force may be inferred”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brooks v. Johnson · Altony Brooks v. Captain Jacumin