McQueen v. Beecher Community Schools’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.3d 460 · 2006
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Sanford ex rel. Estate of Sanford v. Stiles (2006), Spencer v. Bouchard (2006)
26 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Farmer v. Brennan · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““that the state acted with the requisite culpability to establish a substantive due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492, 510 (6th Cir.2002). The government’s conduct must be “so ‘egregious’ that it can be said to be ‘arbitrary in the constitutional sense,’ ” but the standard is “ ‘no calibrated yard stick.’ ” Id. (quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846-847 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998)). “The guiding principle seems to be that a deliberate-indifference standard is appropriate in ‘Dsettings [that] provide the opportunity for reflection and unhurried judgments,’ but that a higher bar may be necessary when opportunities for reasoned deliberation are not present.” Bukowski [v. City of Akron], 326 F.3d [702], at 710 [ (6th Cir.2003) ] (quoting Ewolski, 287 F.3d at 511 n. 5) We have equated deliberate indifference with subjective recklessness, Ewolski, 287 F.3d at 513 , which means that “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference,” Sperle v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 297 F.3d 483 , 493 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). Subjective recklessness can “be proven circumstantially by evidence showing that the risk was so obvious that the official had to have known about it.” Bukowski, 326 F.3d at 710.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““a supervisory official’s failure to supervise, control or train the offending individual is not actionable unless the supervisor ‘either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.’ ” Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 , 300 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting Hays v. Jefferson County, 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir. 1982)). “At a minimum a plaintiff must show that the [supervisor] at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending officers.” Id. (quoting Hays, 668 F.2d at 874 ).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) an affirmative act that creates or increases the risk to the plaintiff, (2) a special danger to the plaintiff as distinguished from the public at large, and (3) the requisite degree of state culpability.”
4 later decisions 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.