green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunter v. Crossmark
Kellogg Co., 176 F.3d 479, at *3 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[T]here is a difference between a particular, 1 There is, however, a law that protects employees from discrimination based on genetic information.
discussed
Cited "see"
McGee v. Lumpkin
See Cotton v. Taylor, 176 F.3d 479 , 1999 WL 155652 , at *3–4 (5th Cir. 1999) (unpublished) (holding that efforts to repair a leaking prison roof negated deliberate indifference even though prisoners were not removed from affected cells); see also Evans v. Harrison Cnty.
discussed
Cited "see"
Streater v. Lorie Davis, Director TDCJ-CID
See Hodges v. Frasier, 176 F.3d 479 (Sth Cir. 1999) (finding no “clear or obvious error” in the district court’s decision “that the possibility that HIV-positive inmates were involved in food preparation did not state a constitutional claim because ‘AIDS is not transmitted by casual contact such as food preparation’”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hemphill v. Gorsuch
See Cotton v. Taylor, 176 F.3d 479, *4 (5th Cir. 1999) (prison officials’ attempts to repair a leaky roof refuted claim of deliberate indifference despite the fact that the conditions created by the water leaks were serious enough to deprive the prisoners of minimally safe housing); Atkins v. Sheriff’s Jail, Avoyelles Parish, 278 F. App’x 438 (5th Cir. 2008) (claim of unreasonableness or negligence with regard to repairing water leaks was not sufficient to show deliberate indifference).
cited
Cited "see"
Brister v. Cain
See Cotton v. Taylor, 176 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 1999) (table decision) (risk of electrocution from wiring was serious risk).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bennett v. Morris
See Cotton v. Taylor, 176 F.3d 479 , 1999 WL 155652, at *2 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (unpublished)(conditions of confinement violated Eighth Amendment where plaintiffs testified that, due to leaking roofs, “there was so much water on the floor at times that the electrical receptacles would spark and smoke and that they feared electrocution”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ghawanmeh v. Islamic Saudi Academy
See Manning v. Broum & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 176 F.3d 479 , 479 (5th Cir.1999) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint on the grounds that plaintiff had seven months to file an amendment yet failed to do so even though he did file a response to the motion to dismiss); Payne for Hicks v. Churchich, 161 F.3d 1030, 1037 (7th Cir.1998) (affirming district court’s denial of plaintiffs motion to file a tenth amended complaint in part because plaintiff repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies in previous amendments); Mittleman v. United States, 997 F.Supp. 1, 10 (D.D.C.1998) …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
U.S
v.
Haggard
v.
Haggard
97-10229.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 11, 1999.
Unpublished
U.S.
v.
Haggard[*]
NO. 97-10229
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
March 10, 1999
Appeal From: N.D.Tex. , No.3:96-CV-958-R
1
Affirmed.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34-2