Dewell v. Lawson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 federal appellate · 31 district · 4 state decisions

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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond all doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 632 F. Supp. 1164 - Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon · Curtis Ambulance of Florida, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee

2. “Appellant Dewell concedes that to be actionable under 1988, the acts of Chief Lawson complained of must have been done: (a) under color of state or local law; and (b) amount to a deprivation of a federal constitutionally protected right which, in this case, is freedom from the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Dewell argues that Chief Lawson’s failure to establish procedures and to train personnel to protect against the damage which resulted to Dewell’s person following his arrest and incarceration by reason of his diabetic condition is actionable as Lawson was negligent in not supervising his subordinates, citing to Carter v. Carlson, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 388 , 447 F.2d 358 (1971), rev’d on other grounds, 409 U.S. 418 [ 93 S.Ct. 602 , 34 L.Ed.2d 613 ] While recognizing that cruel and unusual punishment, as a constitutional concept, is a principle which has not traditionally lent itself to precise definition, Dewell argues that conduct may be actionable as a deprivation of constitutional rights where no force or violence has been utilized and where the conduct constitutes an act of omission. Howell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272 (3rd Cir. 1972); Roberts v. Williams, 456 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 866 [ 92 S.Ct. 83 , 30 L.Ed.2d 110 ], ... The standard of liability in a case alleging cruel and unusual punishment relating to a claimed omission of medical care is whether the plaintiff proves exceptional circumstances and conduct so grossly incompetent, inade”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clappier v. Flynn

3. ““[PJublic officials are entitled to a privilege defense which is to be found somewhere in the area between that of legislators . . . and that of police officers . . . taking into consideration all of the factors including the broadness of the duties imposed and the extent of the powers granted to the particular public officials in the exercise of those duties.” At 882. (emphasis in opinion)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Wickline