Henry A. v. Willden’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.3d 991 · 2012
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1431 · 20 U.S.C. § 1437 · 20 U.S.C. § 1439 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1123 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Younger v. Harris · Pearson v. Callahan · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Hope v. Pelzer
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ejvery federal district court to consider the question has found that the more recent versions of CAPTA do not satisfy the Blessing test”); see also Johnson v. Salmon, 2016 WL 3166385 , at (D. Mass. June 6, 2016) (holding that CAPTA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Bunkley“the affirmative actions of [the] official create[d] or expose[d] an individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By its very nature, the doctrine only applies in situations where the plaintiff was directly harmed by a third party”
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.