76 F. Supp. 2d 688 - Baynard v. Lawson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Daniels v. Williams · Bellotti v. Baird · Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte · Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Matkari
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.
“[I]n the present case, the question is whether the harm that Plaintiffs allege — deprivation of their parental rights — amounts to a direct injury, which is cognizable, or an incidental injury, which is not cognizable. The Fourth Circuit has not defined what constitutes direct injury. However, the First Circuit has provided some guidance. Direct injury is that which is directly aimed at the parent-child relationship. See, Pittsley v. Warish, 927 F.2d 3, 8 (1st Cir.1991) (holding that a mother and her two children failed to establish a § 1983 claim where there was no evidence that threats made to the mother were directly aimed at the relationship between parent and child). The aggrieved person under § 1983 is the target of state action which deprives the victim of their personal rights under the color of state law. See, id. at 9; Ortiz, 807 F.2d at 8 . Only the person toward whom the state action was directed may maintain a § 1983 action. See, Pittsley, 927 F.2d at 9 . Incidental injury is that injury where the offending conduct is directed toward the children themselves and not the parent-child relationship. See, Divergilio v. Skiba, 919 F.Supp. 265 (E.D.Mich.1996). * ❖ * * * * In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Superintendent deprived them of their constitutional right as parents to protect their son from harm caused by the state’s action. The Complaint identifies Defendant Superintendent’s acts and omissions as the state action. Plaintiffs make several assertion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to recognize a substantive due process claim arising from the deprivation of the love and support of a family member.”
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.