Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 712 F.2d 84 - Fox

Fox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
7
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Shaw v. Stroud (1994), Fox v. Custis (1988)

5 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 state decisions

4201980199020002010decided

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

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Baker v. McCollan · Hagans v. Lavine · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn

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

  1. “arise out of special custodial or other relationships.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Id. While we declined to provide a general definition of the special relationship required to give rise to a right to protection, we indicated that such a”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Here, in contrast, the state removed a child from the custody of her parents; and having done so, it could no' more place her in a position of danger, deliberately and without justification, without thereby violating her rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment than it could deliberately and without justification place a criminal defendant in jail or prison in which his health or safety would be endangered, without violating his rights' either under the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment (held applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) if he was a convicted prisoner.... In either case the state would be a doer of harm rather than merely an inept rescuer, just as the Roman state was a doer of harm when it threw Christians to lions.””
    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.