Doe ex rel. Doe v. Braddy’s Empirical Analysis
673 F.3d 1313 · 2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Malley v. Briggs · Paul v. Davis · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the *1234 plaintiff alleging the rights violation is in no custodial relationship with the state, then state officials can violate the plaintiffs substantive due process rights only when the officials cause harm by engaging in conduct that is ‘arbitrary, or conscience] . shocking, in a constitutional sense.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“only custodial relationships automatically give rise to a governmental duty, under 'substantive due process, to protect persons from harm by third parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“even intentional wrongs seldom violate the Due Process Clause”
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.