Vlez-Daz’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2022
7 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“language in DeShaney whether a state action which enhances or creates danger to an individual would provide a separate exception to the general rule of no duty to protect, or whether the language is simply in service of the special relationship exception and provides a set of circumstances where the state's actions might create a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The DeShaney Court . . . recognized a limited exception to this rule which applies to circumstances in which the government has a `special relationship' with the individual because government action has deprived that individual of the liberty needed to protect himself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In addition to the special `custodial' relationships, the DeShaney Court suggested, but never expressly recognized, the possibility that liability might arise where the state creates or substantially contributes to the creation of a danger.”
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.