Case Citator › Ingram v. Jewell

Ingram v. Jewell

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
94 F. App'x 271
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
78 of 78
Citing cases (total)
149
Treatment dates
2018
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Ingram v. Jewell has been criticized: all 78 flagged citations were read, and the one confirmed treatment is listed below. In Maben v. Thelen, a published Sixth Circuit panel contrasted Ingram's finding that a fourteen-day loss of privileges was not adverse action with its own finding that a seven-day loss and possible further sanctions could support a prison-retaliation claim.
More on how this was screened

The other citing opinions applied Ingram's due-process and prison-conditions holdings, reported Maben's discussion, or addressed other authority.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

149 later cases cite Ingram v. Jewell; 78 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Ingram v. Jewell?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Sixth Circuit cited Ingram as contrary authority while holding that a seven-day loss of privileges and possible additional sanctions could support a prisoner retaliation claim.

    Maben v. Thelen · Sixth Circuit · filed

    But see Ingram v. Jewell, 94 F. App’x 271, 273 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding that a loss of fourteen days of privileges did not constitute adverse action).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ingram v. Jewell and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace