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 70 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 Johnson v. Johnson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johnson v. Johnson Anchor | green | “we are mindful that the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be sued; the grievance is not a summons and complaint that initiates adversarial litigation.” | 37 |
| 2 | Maddox v. Love | green | “that maddox didn't specifically name the defendants in the grievance was a mere technical defect that had no effect on the process and didn't limit the usefulness of the exhaustion requirement.” | 17 |
| 3 | Glick v. Walker | green | “articulate what facts the prison could reasonably expect from a prisoner in his position.” | 16 |
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.