Jackson v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis
429 F.3d 586 · 2005
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Jones ex rel. Estate of Jones v. Reynolds (2006), Peete v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (2007)
17 federal appellate · 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · Brosseau v. Haugen
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the concept of custody does not extend this far.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) an affirmative act by the EMTs that creates or increases a risk that the decedent would be exposed to “private acts of violence,” (2) a special danger to the decedent such that the EMTs’ acts placed the decedent specifically at risk, as distinguished from a risk that affects the public at large, and (3) that the EMTs knew or should have known that their actions specifically endangered the decedent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Jenne“There is no allegation that the EMTs restrained or handcuffed the decedent. There is no allegation that the decedent was not free to leave the ambulance or be removed from the ambulance. Decedent’s liberty was “constrained” by his incapacity, and his incapacity was in no way caused by the defendants.”
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.