Camp v. Gregory’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[N]othing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law,” but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text. Like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent government "from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression,” ____ Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other. The Framers were content to leave the extent of governmental obligation in the latter area to the democratic political processes.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Stevens v. Umsted · By and Through Her Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem, Ellen Jervis v. Michelle McMullen

2. “A public official who has deprived someone of his constitutional right may nonetheless enjoy immunity from an award of damages if his actions were "objectively reasonable, meaning that [if] ‘[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,' ” he is immune from an action for civil damages. Supreme Video, Inc. v. Schauz, 15 F.3d 1435, 1438-39 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 [ 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 ] (1982)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Stevens v. Umsted

3. “In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf— through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty — which is the 'deprivation of liberty' triggering the protections of Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interest against harms inflicted by other means.”) (footnote omitted). 10 . Under the doctrine of qualified immunity,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Stevens v. Umsted