Burton v. Richmond’s Empirical Analysis
370 F.3d 723 · 2004
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in a due process challenge to executive action, the threshold question is whether the behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beck v. Wilson“Before official conduct or inaction rises to the level of a substantive due process violation[,] it must be so egregious or outrageous that it is conscience-shocking.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beck v. Wilson“entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs have failed to show a constitutional violation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Beck v. Wilson
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.