Crawford-El v. Britton’s Empirical Analysis
951 F.2d 1314 · 1991
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Johnson v. Jones (1995), Crawford-El v. Britton (1998)
34 federal appellate · 8 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Foman v. Davis · Wolff v. McDonnell · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Daniels v. Williams
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“failed to link his deprivation to any adverse litigation effect”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) On August 9, 1989, Crawford-El and other D.C. prisoners told Britton that their property, which she was responsible for shipping, included necessary materials on pending cases. Britton smirked and acted and spoke cavalierly, but said that she understood his concerns and promised to personally make sure that he received his property. (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶ 20.) (2) In Petersburg, Virginia, other D.C. prisoners told Crawford-El that Britton had called their relatives and told them that if they did not pick up their property, she would throw it away. (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶ 28.) When Carter later voiced Crawford-EI's concerns to Britton, she told him that Crawford-EI should be happy she did not throw his property in the trash. (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶31.) (3) Also in Petersburg, Virginia, Crawford-El and another prisoner called Britton, tricked her into accepting the call by having a friend place the call, told her that a Bureau of Prisons official had told them that their property would be sent to their final destinations, and expressed concern about their property. He alleges that Britton said that she had no duty to do anything with their property. (Fourth Amended Complaint, at ¶ 30.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t was clear by 1989 that an officer who interfered with the transmission of an inmate's legal papers for the purpose of thwarting the inmate's litigation violated his constitutional right of access to the courts.”
1 later decision 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.