Coleman v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Hallett v. Morgan (2002), Brown v. Plata (2011)
5 federal appellate · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Estelle v. Gamble · Farmer v. Brennan · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Hudson v. Palmer
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“seriously mentally ill inmates in the California Department of Corrections daily face an objectively intolerable risk of harm as a result of the gross systemic deficiencies that obtain throughout the Department____ [I]nmates have in fact suffered significant harm as a result of those deficiencies; seriously mentally ill inmates have languished for months, or even years, without access to necessary care. They suffer from severe hallucinations, they decompensate into catatonic states, and they suffer the other sequela to untreated mental disease.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To some extent, the Rules of Evidence expand the admissibility of depositions beyond areas that are governed by Rule 32, or regulate admissibility with greater detail. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example: Admissions at a deposition by a party-opponent’s agent or servants-other than that party’s officer’s, directors, managing agents, and Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) deponents-are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) to the extent they concern matters within the scope of the agency or employment ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The “baseline” mental state for “wantonness” is “deliberate indifference.” Id. As a general rule, the deliberate indifference standard applies where the claim is that conditions of confinement cause unnecessary suffering. Id. In contrast, the “malicious and sadistic” standard applies to claims arising out of the use of force to maintain order. See id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman v. Brown
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.