green
Positive treatment
Trending · 116 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.4 score
“the 15 circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of necessities must be considered in 16 determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Ali Ahmed v. Dragovich
But see Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089 , 1090 (8th Cir.1999) (permitting prisoner to continue action where he exhausted "at the time the court ruled"). 10 We note that every court of appeals to have considered the issue has held that the PLRA does not apply to actions filed by former prisoners See, e.g., Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 979-80 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (determining PLRA not applicable to complaints filed by former prisoners for complaints regarding prison conditions prior to release, and concluding dismissals should be without prejudice to refiling on release), cert. denied,…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Beadle v. Smolich
the 15 circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of necessities must be considered in 16 determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Michels v. United States
the tucker act is a purely jurisdictional statute; on its own predicate, it does not enable a party to recover monetary damages from the united states.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Johnson v. Kuersten
See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 , 9 298 (1991); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 10 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Bennett v. Burton
See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 , 11 298 (1991); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 12 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Bennett v. Burton
See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 , 1 298 (1991); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 2 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Bennett v. Burton
See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 , 9 298 (1991); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 10 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jeremy Allen v. Charles Brooks
See Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 979-80 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 (2001). 4 But consistent with the plain meaning of § 1997e(e), the Eleventh Circuit in Harris concluded that an amended pleading filed after the prisoner’s release does not affect when the action was “brought.” “[T]he confinement status of the plaintiffs at any time after the lawsuit is filed is beside the point.” Id. at 981.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Secretary Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
See Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 , 976–77 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. EULIANO
See United States v. Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d 292, 311 (1st Cir. 2000) (harmless error review applies “to the failure to include an element in an indictment that otherwise provided the defendants with fair notice of the charges against them”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 (2001); United States v. Dentler, 492 F.3d 306, 310 (5th Cir. 2007) (applying harmless error review to failure to include an element in an indictment); State v. Fichera, 160 N.H. 660, 662-63 (2010) (applying harmless error review to an Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), violation concerning an omission from an indic…
discussed
Cited "see"
Freeze v. State
See United States v. Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d 292, 311-12 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2215 , 150 L.Ed.2d 209 (2001); Campbell v. Umited States, 364 F.3d 727, 737 (6th Cir.2004), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 987 , 160 L.Ed.2d 1066 (2005); United States v. Trennell, 290 F.3d 881, 890 (7th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1014 , 128 S.Ct. 508 , 154 L.Ed.2d 419 ; but see State v. Hughes, 110 P.3d 192, 204-07 (Wash.2005) (holding that lack of jury finding for aggravating *605 cireumstance is structural error and can never be harmless).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chase v. Peay
See Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 973-74 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2214 , 150 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001); cf. Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998) (applying § 1997e(e) to the plaintiffs status at the time of filing and holding that a former prisoner is not subject to the physical injury requirement if he has been released at the time of fifing).
cited
Cited "see"
Andalex Resources, Inc. v. United States
See Cyprus Amax Coal Co. v. United States, 205 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2214 , 150 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Lawrence v. Goord
See Porter v. Nussle, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2213 , 150 L.Ed.2d 207 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Lawrence v. Goord
See Porter v. Nussle, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2213 , 150 L.Ed.2d 207 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Angus Wright v. Sec. For the Dept. of Correc.
See Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (‘We begin our construction of [a statutory provision] where courts should always begin the process of legislative interpretation, and where they often should end it as well, which is with the words of the statutory provision.”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2214 , 150 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001); United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tavares v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d 292, 311 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2215 , 150 L.Ed.2d 209 (2001); Sustache-Rivera v. United States, 221 F.3d at 17 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Ass'n Local Union 143
Belgrave v. Pena, 254 F.3d 384, 386 (2d Cir.2001); see Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir.1999) (citing Williams v. Runyon, 130 F.3d 568, 573 (3d Cir.1997)), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2214 , 150 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Oliveira
“We review the trial court’s determination that statements were coconspirator statements under the clear error standard.” United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 25 (1st Cir.2002); see also United States v. Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d 292, 304 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 -66, 121 S.Ct. 2215 , 150 L.Ed.2d 209 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allapattah Services, Inc. a Florida corp., Robert Lewis, Inc., a Florida corp, d.b.a. Trian Exxon, G.G.S.K.1, Inc., a Florida corp., d.b.a North Stuart Exxon, G.G.S.K., Inc. v. Roy Page, Glebe Road Exxon, Inc. v. Exxon Corporation, a New Jer
Because we do not believe that the text of the statute expresses any legislative intent to prevent district courts from exercising supplemental jurisdiction in diversity class actions, we decline to "rewrite the statute to insert Rule 23 into § 1367(b)'s list of exceptions." Rosmer, 263 F.3d at 115 ; see also Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 976 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ("We will not do to the statutory language what Congress did not do with it, because the role of the judicial branch is to apply statutory language, not to rewrite it."), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2214 , 150 L.E…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
Because we do not believe that the text of the statute expresses any legislative intent to prevent district courts from exercising supplemental jurisdiction in diversity class actions, we decline to “rewrite the statute to insert Rule 23 into § 1367(b)’s list of exceptions.” Rosmer, 263 F.3d at 115 ; see also Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 976 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (“We will not do to the statutory language what Congress did not do with it, because the role of the judicial branch is to apply statutory language, not to rewrite it.”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2214 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ahmed v. Dragovich
See, e.g., Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 979-80 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (determining PLRA not applicable to complaints filed by former prisoners for complaints regarding prison conditions prior to release, and concluding dismissals should be without prejudice to refiling on release), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1065 , 121 S.Ct. 2214 , 150 L.Ed.2d 208 (2001); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2000); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998) (determining PLRA not applicable to suit filed by inmate after he was released on parole)…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Oser
No. 00-9622.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 4, 2001.
532 U.S. 1065
Published
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1) · W.D. Washington (1)
Petition for writ of mandamus denied.