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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 23 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 Rienholtz v. Campbell.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rienholtz v. Campbell Anchor | green | “if that were so, then every prisoner could obtain review of non-cognizable claims merely by filing a lawsuit or grievance and then perpetually claiming retaliation.” | 12 |
| 2 | Arthor C. Lewis v. Margaret Jacks Marie Linzy | green | “must show that impermissible retaliation was the actual motivating factor for his transfer” | 7 |
| 3 | Mark Bitzan v. Jerry Bartruff | green | “failed to state a retaliation claim because he . . . failed to allege which defendants were involved in or affected by his grievances.” | 4 |
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.