Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 913 F.2d 1085 - Miller v. Leathers

Miller v. Leathers’s Empirical Analysis

913 F.2d 1085 · 1990

Citation profile

221
cited by 221 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
August 2019
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 15 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 221 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Hudson v. McMillian (1992), Shaw v. Stroud (1994)

52 federal appellate · 15 district ·

1540199020002010decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bell v. Wolfish · Hudson v. Palmer · Whitley v. Albers

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

  1. “to have the credibility of [their] evidence as forecast assumed, [their] version of all that is in dispute accepted, [and] all internal conflicts in it resolved favorably to [them].”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. Many of the concerns underlying our holding in Whitley arise whenever guards use force to keep order.... [Wjhenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley : whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”
    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.