This HTML5 document contains 83 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n4https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n12http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n28https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/
n20http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl%3FSubmit=Display&Path=Y2018/D10-09/C:15-3298:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2231053:S:
n29https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
n25http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/
n32https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ross-v-blake/
n15http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/05/18/
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n30https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/
n19http://jlsp.law.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2018/04/
n26https://www.leagle.com/decision/
n23https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3209793/ross-v-blake/
n22http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/48da08d2-3e6d-487e-9307-7e8459167a61/3/doc/14-4777_opn.pdf%23xml=http:/www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/48da08d2-3e6d-487e-9307-7e8459167a61/3/hilite/
n14https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2016/06/
n27https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/
n10https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/15-339/
n13https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/oct/10/second-circuit-ross-abrogates-special-circumstances-exhaustion-exception/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n21http://jaapl.org/content/45/1/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
n6https://fedsoc.org/commentary/podcasts/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Ross_v._Blake
rdf:type
wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:LegalCase owl:Thing dbo:Case
rdfs:label
Ross v. Blake
rdfs:comment
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "special circumstances" cannot excuse an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available. In so doing, it vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
foaf:name
Michael Ross, Petitioner v. Shaidon Blake
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court
dbo:wikiPageID
50737013
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1076336557
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:F.3d dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_578 dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Maryland dbr:Exhaustion_of_remedies dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Journal_of_the_American_Academy_of_Psychiatry_and_the_Law dbr:G._Steven_Agee dbr:Administrative_Law_Review dbr:Prison_Litigation_Reform_Act_of_1995 dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Third_Enforcement_Act dbr:Majority_opinion dbr:Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:4th_Cir. dbr:Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act dbr:Prison_Litigation_Reform_Act dbr:Certiorari dbr:United_States_Reports dbr:Elena_Kagan dbr:Woodford_v._Ngo dbr:Alexander_Williams_Jr.
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n4:15-339 n6:ross-v-blake-post-decision-scotuscast n10: n12:172783P.pdf n13: n14:mixed-result-in-state-prisoner-rights-case.html n15:16-15597.pdf n19:Vol51-Cohen.pdf n20:0 n21:116 n22: n23: n25:161080p.pdf n26:infco20160727084 n27:15-497_p8k0.pdf n30:15-339_1b7d.pdf n32: n28:15-339
owl:sameAs
wikidata:Q24885087 n29:2LYeW yago-res:Ross_v._Blake
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case
dbp:docket
15
dbp:joinmajority
Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:Prison_Litigation_Reform_Act_of_1995
dbp:opinionannouncement
n30:15-339_1b7d.pdf
dbp:oralargument
n28:15-339
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
___
dbp:usvol
578
dbp:arguedate
0001-03-29
dbp:argueyear
2016
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-06
dbp:decideyear
2016
dbp:fullname
Michael Ross, Petitioner v. Shaidon Blake
dbp:holding
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not have a “special circumstances” exception, but inmates are only required to exhaust administrative remedies that are genuinely available to them.
dbp:litigants
Ross v. Blake
dbp:majority
Kagan
dbo:abstract
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "special circumstances" cannot excuse an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available. In so doing, it vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
dbp:concurrence
Thomas Breyer
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Ross_v._Blake?oldid=1076336557&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
15610
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Ross_v._Blake