Uhlrig v. Harder’s Empirical Analysis
64 F.3d 567 · 1995
Citation profile
95 federal appellate · 78 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 258 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Morse v. Lower Merion School District (1997), Sutton II v. Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind 1-5 1-5 (1999)
95 federal appellate · 78 district · 19 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bishop v. Wood · Rochin v. People of California · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Siegert v. Gilley
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 258 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘must demonstrate that (1) the charged state entity and the charged individual actors created the danger or increased ... [Kelsey’s] vulnerability to the danger in some way; (2) [Kelsey] ... was a member of a limited and specifically definable group; (3) defendants’ conduct put [Kelsey] ... at substantial risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm; (4) the risk was obvious or known; (5) defendants acted recklessly in conscious disregard of that risk; and (6) such conduct, when viewed in total, is conscience shocking.’ ””
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Establishing these limits advances “three basic principles highlighted by the Supreme Court in evaluating substantive due process claims: (1) the need for restraint in defining their scope; (2) the concern that § 1983 not replace state tort law; and (3) the need for deference to local policymaking bodies in making decisions impacting upon public safety.””
19 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.