Pink v. Lester’s Empirical Analysis
52 F.3d 73 · 1995
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Lovelace v. Lee (2006), D'AOUST v. Diamond (2012)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 · Estelle v. Gamble · Wolff v. McDonnell · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Daniels’ rejection of a theory of actionable negligence under the Due Process Clause is consistent with Supreme Court cases interpreting other provisions of the Constitution. For instance, Estelle v. Gamble held that only conduct rising to the level of “deliberate indifference” constitutes “infliction” of cruel and unusual punishment for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. 429 U.S. 97, 104 , 97 S.Ct. 285, 291 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Similarly, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp. requires discriminatory purpose in order to establish a “denial” of Equal Protection. 429 U.S. 252, 265 , 97 S.Ct. 555, 563 , 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977). The language and the purpose of the Due Process Clause thus restrict violations thereof to official conduct that entails some measure of deliberateness. Absent such limitation, the Fourteenth Amendment would be demeaned, and federal courts would adjudicate claims that lacked connection to federal law. In our system of governance, the Constitution is revered but not ubiquitous, and federal courts sit as courts of limited jurisdiction. Thus, as Daniels underscores, not all undesirable behavior by state actors is unconstitutional. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 , 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1160 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) (the Fourteenth Amendment is not “a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States’).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing an unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.... Not only does the word “deprive” in the Due Process Clause connote more than a negligent act, but we should not open the federal courts to lawsuits where there has been no affirmative abuse of power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roush v. Justice
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.