Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 706 SO2D 358 - Lindquist v. Woronka

Lindquist v. Woronka’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Hughes v. Rowe · Gomez v. Toledo · Kneipp v. Tedder · Reed v. Gardner

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “While the State may have been aware of the dangers that [the plaintiff] faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them. That the State once took temporary custody of [the plaintiff! does not alter the analysis, for when it [released him], it placed him in no worse position than that in which he would have been had it not acted at all; the State does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual’s safety by having once offered him shelter.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although plaintiff alleges that defendants placed him in a more dangerous position by his arrest and release, the release of plaintiff at the ... police station which happens to be located near an intersection, is insufficient ... to impose civil rights liability on defendants. No court has yet found a violation of an individual’s due process rights under similar facts.”
    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.