Howell v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
922 F.2d 712 · 1991
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Marsh v. Butler County (2001), McElligott v. Foley (1999)
35 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Estelle v. Gamble
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [t]he standard for deliberate indifference focuses on the failure to provide or allow proper treatment in the face of information which reasonably should compel action. Such deliberate indifference is often manifest by a refusal to act when certain actions were or should have been known to be necessary, rather than simply a failure to act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“an area Burden acknowledged was under his control.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Pinkney v. Davis · Howell v. Burden“1. Dr. Jenkins’ and Dr. Maughon’s treatment of this child was such a total departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards, that it cannot be said that their treatment was based on accepted professional judgment or psychiatric practice in the general community. 2. As a result of the departure from accepted professional judgment on the part of the psychiatrists and on the part of the staff at Eufaula Adolescent Center, including Dr. Mazick, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Maughon, Karen Juris, and Andrew McBride, David was not given necessary and essential individual treatment to afford him a realistic opportunity to be cured or to improve his mental condition. 3. That the lack of treatment by Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Maughon demonstrated deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of this child. 4. That as a result of this lack of treatment combined with the abuse, neglect, intimidation and fear for his personal security to which David was subjected, David’s condition deteriorated significantly while he was a patient at Eufaula Adolescent Center. 5. That within a reasonable degree of medical probability, had David received the necessary and essential treatment from the staff and psychiatrists and had he not been subjected to the atmosphere of abuse, neglect, and intimidation at Eufaula Adolescent Center, David’s condition would not have deteriorated in the manner that it did and his ultimate suicide attempt would not have occurred when it occurred. 6. That it was a ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.