Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 719 F.3d 160 - Morrow v. Balaski

Morrow v. Balaski’s Empirical Analysis

719 F.3d 160 · 2013

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
2
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Estelle v. Gamble · Pearson v. Callahan · Roe v. Wade · Daniels v. Williams

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

  1. “(1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; (2) a state actor acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience; (3) a relationship between the state and the plaintiff existed such that the plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of the defendant’s acts, or a member of a discrete class of persons subjected to the potential harm brought about by the state’s actions, as opposed to a member of the public in general; and (4) a state actor affirmatively used his or her authority in a way that created a danger to the citizen or that rendered the citizen more vulnerable to danger than had the state not acted at all.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. Henry v. City of Erie · Lansberry v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist.
  2. “accept unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Jefferies v. Sessions · Zurchin v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist.
  3. “[W]e do not, of course, suggest that public schools as a general matter have such a degree of control over children as to give rise to a constitutional duty to protect.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
    e.g. Lansberry v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist. · Lichtenstein v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.

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.