Andrews v. Hickman County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 4 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, we determine whether based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff show that a constitutional violation has occurred. Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Third, we determine whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. · Doe v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

2. “[i]f their implication is that social workers are not state actors for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has established that the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures extend well beyond the police: [T]he Court has long spoken of the Fourth Amendment’s strictures as restraints imposed upon “governmental action” — that is, “upon the activities of sovereign authority.” Accordingly, we have held the Fourth Amendment applicable to the activities of civil as well as criminal authorities.... Because the individual’s interest in privacy and personal security “suffers whether the government’s motivation is to investigate violations of criminal laws or breaches of other statutory or regulatory standards,” it would be anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 335 , 105 S.Ct. 733 , 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (internal citations omitted). Thus, the presumption appears to be that any state officer should operate with the default understanding that the Fourth Amendment applies to her actions, unless a specific exception to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment has been found to apply.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. · Schulkers v. Kammer

3. ““[A] social worker, like other state officers, is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” Andrews v. Hickman Cnty., 700 F.3d 845, 859 (6th Cir.2012). “This would simply mean that social workers would have to obtain consent, have sufficient grounds to believe that exigent circumstances exist, or qualify under another recognized exception to the warrant requirement before engaging in warrantless entries and searches of homes.” Id. at 859-60 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 46 F. Supp. 3d 754 - Stephens v. Hamilton County Jobs & Family Services