Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 47 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ward v. Olson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ward v. Olson Anchor | green | “a dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party.” | 22 |
| 2 | James Miller v. Larry Norris | green | “capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose: immediately utilizable . . . accessible.” | 9 |
| 3 | Malik Abdul-Muhammad v. Gary Kempker | green | “if an inmate fails to exhaust one or more discrete claims raised in the 1983 complaint, the plra requires only that the unexhausted claim or claims be dismissed - it does not require that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.” | 7 |
| 4 | John Smith v. Jeremy Andrews | green | “it follows that administrative remedies are 'unavailable' to an inmate under section 1997e(a) when (1) the inmate was unable to file a timely grievance due to physical or mental incapacity; and (2) the administrative system's rules do not accommodate the condition by allowing a …” | 6 |
| 5 | Malik Abdul-Muhammad v. Gary Kempker | green | “the degree of specificity required in a prison grievance 'will vary from system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison's requirements, and not that plra, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.