McCarthy v. Maddigan’s Empirical Analysis
914 F.2d 1411 · 1990
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Gleason v. United States · Goar v. Civiletti · Brice v. Day · Muhammad v. Carlson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'a broad exhaustion requirement is particularly appropriate in cases involving federal prisoner complaints against prison officials relating to their ... treatment during confinement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not challenge on appeal the district court's finding that he failed to demonstrate his use of the [available] administrative remedy process;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not keyed to the type of relief sought, but to the need for preliminary fact-finding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCarthy v. Madigan
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.