Waybright v. Frederick County’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.3d 199 · 2008
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Evans v. Chalmers (2012), Goines v. Valley Community Services Board (2016)
7 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 1367 · 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 · Daniels v. Williams · Paul v. Davis · County of Sacramento v. Lewis
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[M]unicipalities cannot be liable under § 1983 without some predicate 'constitutional injury at the hands of the individual [state] officer,' at least in suits for damages.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]y finding a state-created danger here, we might well inject federal authority into public school playground incidents, football (or even ballet) practice sessions, and class field trips, not to mention training sessions for government jobs that require some degree of physical fitness. Sometimes practice is demanding because games are demanding, and training is demanding because jobs are demanding, and how best to conduct these sessions can rarely be the focus of a constitutional claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[D]ue process does not impose a duty on municipalities to provide their employees with a safe workplace or warn them against risks of harm (though state tort law may). [Collins] is right on point, for plaintiffs’ state-created danger claim, in essence, is that [the fire department] created an unsafe workplace that caused a prospective employee [i.e., a recruit] harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.