Morin v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.3d 316 · 2002
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n · Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. · Piotrowski v. City of Houston
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... we hold that a 'special relationship' arises between a person and the state only when this person is involuntarily confined against his will through the affirmative exercise of state power. Absent this 'special relationship,’ the state has no duty to protect nor liability from failing to protect a person under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from violence at the hands of a private actor.” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rios v. City of Del Rio · Rios II“Potential liability in such a situation is recognized by [the] Restatement of Torts [wherein it states that] [o]ne who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the property was used or misused by a governmental employee acting within the scope of his or her employment, and (2) that the use or misuse of the property was a contributing factor to the injury. The negligence of the government employee must be the proximate cause of the injury and must involve a condition or use of tangible personal property under circumstances where there would be private liability.”
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.