Douglas Laverne Adams v. L. Wainwright, Louis Carmichael, W. Marion Ellis, John L. Townsend, Jr., Michael Odom, 875 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Douglas Laverne Adams v. L. Wainwright, Louis Carmichael, W. Marion Ellis, John L. Townsend, Jr., Michael Odom, 875 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 · 2 courts · …to the extent that the 'but for' test places a greater burden of proof on the inmate. at p. 1537 ✓
10 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Osterback v. Kemp (flnd, 2003-10-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Osterback v. Kemp
N.D. Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pate v. Peel
N.D. Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
In Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam), a First Amendment retaliation case in the prisoner context, the Government urged the Eleventh Circuit to adopt the "but for” standard set forth by the First Circuit in McDonald , in which the burden remains on the prisoner/plaintiff rather than shifting to the defendant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adams v. James
M.D. Fla. · 1992 · confidence medium
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to follow the “but for” analysis in the context of prisoners’ retaliation suits, “to the extent that the ‘but for’ test places a greater burden of proof on the inmate.” Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1989) (citing Hall v. Evans, 842 F.2d 337 (11th Cir.1988) (table decision vacating district court order granting summary judgment to Defendants based on “but for” analysis)). 2 However, in the prison context, there must be a “mutual accommodation” between the penal institution’s legitimate needs and goal…
discussed Cited "see" Castle v. Clymer
E.D. Pa. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir.1989) (quoting unpublished decision in Hall v. Evans, 842 F.2d 337 (11th Cir.1988) (table), rejecting the “but for” test in favor of the “significant factor” test).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Gonzalez v. Monty
S.D. Fla. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir.1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Douglas LaVerne ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. WAINWRIGHT, Louis Carmichael, W. Marion Ellis, John L. Townsend, Jr., Michael Odom, Defendants-Appellees
87-3865.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jun 27, 1989.
875 F.2d 1536
Douglas Laverne Adams, Daytona Beach, Fla., pro se., Charlie L. Adams, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., J. Craig Myrick and Kimberly J. Tucker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Fay, Hatchett, Hoffman, Per Curiam.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Douglas LaVerne Adams, alleged that prison authorities transferred him in retaliation for filing lawsuits and unconstitutionally confiscated his legal materials. Adams contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the prison authorities on these contentions.

The evidence Adams submitted refuted the allegations in his complaint. Consequently, Adams failed to present a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The state urges us to adopt the “but for” standard set forth in McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18-19 (1st Cir.1979) (prisoner must prove that he or she would not have been transferred “but for” an assertion of constitutional rights). We decline to adopt the “but for” standard. See Hall v. Evans, 86-8782 (11th Cir. March 9, 1988) [842 F.2d 337 (table)] (“To the extent that the ‘but for’ test places a greater burden of proof on the appellant, we decline to follow it.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.