Sundbye v. Ogunleye’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2012
2 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Mathews v. Eldridge
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“demonstrate that the government actor’s actions were arbitrar)'', or conscience-shocking, in a constitutional sense. Substantive due process does not provide protection against state actions that are merely incorrect or ill-advised. Therefore, most claims sounding in tort do not constitute substantive due process violations. Indeed, even intentional torts by government actors are not actionable as substantive due process violations unless they are arbitrary and discriminatory or shock the conscience.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“reject the suggestion that plaintiff must actually have been deprived of her liberty interest, and that her mere reasonable belief that such a deprivation had occurred is insufficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tigrett“was not even close to `reasonably prompt.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.