Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 FSUPP2D 626 - Hermann v. Cook

Hermann v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
October 2004
most recently cited

Relationships

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Siegert v. Gilley · Foley v. Connelie

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “One can certainly debate about the best course of action for the police and bystanders to have taken. Reasonable arguments might support a decision for any number of possible actions. That is the judgment call which the officers must make on the scene. Whether additional efforts would have actually proved successful or would only have cost the lives of police officers or bystanders can never be known. What is absolutely clear is that the Defendants did not violate Hermann’s constitutional rights by making the reasonable judgment that neither they nor innocent bystanders should attempt a rescue before trained personnel arrived. For these reasons, Plaintiffs federal claims against the individual Defendants must be dismissed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Here, the Court finds neither a special relationship which restrained Hermann so as to expose him to harm, nor any affirmative conduct on Defendants’ part placing him in greater danger. Defendants held Hermann in custody in an entirely appropriate manner. Neither Hermann’s conduct nor the circumstances required the need for greater restraint; Defendants took no affirmative action to place him in greater danger. Nor can anyone reasonably say that Defendants caused the kind of “special danger” which the Sixth Circuit has said is necessary to create an affirmative duty. Only Hermann’s unexpected attempted escape and dash into the Ohio River created the circumstances of his death.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.