672 F. Supp. 1152 - In Re Scott County Master Docket’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Revene v. Charles County Commissioners (1989), Moran v. Clarke (2002)
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 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 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 608 (§ 408 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 620 (§ 420 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 625 (§ 425 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Franks v. Delaware
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.
“In striking the substantive due process balance, the question “is not simply whether a liberty interest has been infringed but whether the extent or nature of the [infringement] ... is such as to violate due process.” It is a question of degree. In general, substantive due process “is concerned with violations of personal rights ... so severe ... so disproportionate to the need presented, and ... so inspired by malice or sadism rather than a merely careless or unwise excess of zeal that it amounted to a brutal and inhumane abuse of official power literally shocking to the conscience.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moran v. Clarke“First, the private interest that will be affected by the initial action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal administrative burden that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“To the extent that the social workers relied in good faith upon the advice of competent counsel on a question of law of sufficient complexity to justify resort to expert legal guidance the social workers are protected by principles of qualified immunity for conduct undertaken in reliance upon such advice, provided that the advice was not patently unreasonable under the circumstances of the case.”
1 later decision 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.